http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/07/air-force-moving-forward--10-replacement/82746220/
>WASHINGTON — The Air Force is moving forward with a key step in developing a dedicated close-air support plane to replace the A-10 Warthog, a top general said Thursday.
“My requirements guys are in the process of building a draft requirements document for a follow-on CAS airplane,” Lt. Gen. Mike Holmes, the deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, said.
>Once the requirement is firm, the next step will be deciding the most cost-effective way to meet that need, Holmes said. The Air Force will weigh the capability and affordability of three alternatives: building a new A-X, using existing aircraft to meet the CAS mission, or extending the life of the A-10, Holmes said.
>Meanwhile, several existing and development aircraft could meet the CAS mission, Holmes said, pointing to light fighters like the A-29 Super Tucano attack plane, the AT-6 trainer aircraft and Textron AirLand’s Scorpion.The Air Force will also look at potentially re-purposing the T-X advanced trainer airframe for the CAS mission down the road, Holmes said.
>“I would never look at you and tell you, 'Hey, the replacement, one-for-one, for the A-10 is the F-35,' ” said Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein last month.
F-35 Shills BTFO, CASfags Victorious. We should be getting the initial requirements by the end of the year. The best part is that this will force the AF to more precisely define what CAS is. The last paragraph of the article also contrasts current use of B-1s and other air frames with the 70s vision of CAS which birthed the A-10.
>Daily reminder that a CAS/COIN contender that is NOT the OV-10X Bronco is no contender at all
>>29525004
So, they're not gonna slap the F-35 into its role? Thank God.
lol how is this a knock on the F-35?
Nobody ever claimed that the F-35 could do what the A-10 can do. The claim was that the A-10's role is obsolete, and it's an obsolete plane. You don't need an A-10 just to do gun runs on haji. This is what F-35 fans have been saying this whole time, that retiring the A-10 is the right decision, and replacing it with some cheap-ass prop plane or training plane mounted with some weapons is the best way to fill the COIN role that the A-10 was filling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCVmPffxDkU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49BpdALG3iU
https://youtu.be/lfC3ChIjCcQ?t=11s
>>29525041
>Nobody ever claimed that the F-35 could do what the A-10 can do
But that's exactly what the F-35 shills have been saying...
>>29525041
thanks based anon
>>29525068
don't worry m8, it's your strawman, you can customise it however you want
>>29525004
>>29525041
Does that mean no BRRRRRT-35? :(
I would have payed money to see how they'd fit the gat into it.
>>29525068
no, nobody ever claimed the F-35 could fly around getting Iglas up the ass while BRRTing Hajis and getting torn up by ZSUs.
F-35 "shills" have been saying precisely this. That the F-35 will fill every other multirole, strike, and ground attack capability, while if needed for COIN against no-threat environments, then a cheap-ass little plane can be purchased for that purpose, and it's not worth keeping the A-10 for that.
Or, you could keep propping up your strawman to shit on the F-35 needlessly. Your portrayal of this as being some victory over the F-35 is retarded.
>>29525103
They have a 25mm gat (on a gunpod for the -B and -C variants)
>several existing and development aircraft could meet the CAS mission, Holmes said, pointing to light fighters like the A-29 Super Tucano attack plane, the AT-6 trainer aircraft and Textron AirLand’s Scorpion
Turboprop > A-10
>>29525190
ikr. Love how the A-10-fags are pretending that the military declaring that a fucking prop plane will replace the A-10 somehow defends their worship of the A-10
I vote for the Scorpion
strike/ISR 4 life
>>29525209
>>29525190
Makes this really hilarious in hindsight now.
Harriers.
/thread
>>29525307
Whoops, forgot link
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/there-was-no-way-a-p-51-could-replace-the-a-10-a65e39df1085#.a3kdposdf
>>29525114
I guess I rustled your jimmies, huh? I Never said anything against the F-35 in my post. I just pointed out that you were wrong in your claim. Anons on /k/ have been saying for the last two years that the F-35 could do exactly what the A-10 can. They were wrong, as you yourself are implying, but they still said it. And I used the word "shill" because what else would you call someone who is so enamored with a plane that they think it's fiscally acceptable to use millions of dollars worth of bombs on a few hajjis instead of thousands of dollars of cannon shells just to support its use?
>>29525307
>>29525323
Hahaha, poor War Is Boring. The meme's were all true.
>>29525278
I like it, but damn do I like the OV-10 for its pylon orbit capability and utility bay.
>>29525333
>act retarded
>get called retarded
>lolumadbro
what is this, 2010? fuck off.
You clearly don't know what the word "shill" means.
OP said this was a knock on the F-35. I was answering him. Now, either you're OP and you're retarded because you're now claiming you never said anything against the F-35, or you're someone else who is jumping into the thread and defending OP, and then claiming you weren't part of it.
Again, nobody ever claimed the F-35 would be performing the same role the A-10 is performing. Nobody. What people said was that the A-10 was obsolete, the original role it was designed for was obsolete, and for COIN shit, you don't need an A-10 and can use literally any other cheap plane. The fucking Afghan military is using fucking Cessna's loaded with Hellfire missiles.
Seriously, it's amusing to watch you A-10 worshipers try to spin this to say you were right. It was the F-35 people saying this whole time that retiring the A-10 was the right decision, and that it could be replaced by the F-35 and a cheap prop plane.
>>29525068
F-35 'shills' say the F-35 performs CAS like every other aircraft in the US inventory does.
>>29525427
this. The vast majority of CAS missions consist of a plane loitering at medium altitude dropping guided munitions. Literally any plane the US has can do this, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, etc. Using the A-10 in this role is retarded and unnecessary, and the other planes are all better at it. The whole point of the A-10 was as a speedbump against hordes of shit-tier soviet BMPs and old reservist tanks that it could just BRRT with the gun and hope to limp back to base. That role is obsolete, and already by the first gulf war it was just being used as a maverick truck. Since then, it's been used for COIN, which again, literally any other plane can do, including prop planes like the Tucano or AT-6.
The A-10 is old. It's obsolete. For CAS or Strike missions, the F-35 is better. For COIN, it's unnecessary.
>>29525333
>Anons on /k/ have been saying for the last two years that the F-35 could do exactly what the A-10 can
Repeating this doesn't make it true, almost every F-35 vs A-10 argument here has played out like this
>How is the F-35 going to do low and slow BRRT?
>Low and slow BRRT is a meme, the same effect can be achieved better with guided bombs
>But muh cost-effectiveness! You don't need expensive PGMs to bomb sandniggers which is all we'll ever do anyways!
>Then why not just use turboprops and drones for that?
>But groundpounders like seeing the BRRT!
>>29525004
Good, it's about time too. With the cost per flight hour difference they could easily rack up 23x the flight hours with a Super Tucano vs the A-10 for the same cost ($500/flight hour vs $11,500/flight hour).
>>29525408
thanks,
I believe the scorpion can help many smaller nations air forces that are looking for cheap multirole aircraft.
>“I would never look at you and tell you, 'Hey, the replacement, one-for-one, for the A-10 is the F-35,' ” said Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein last month
The F-35 will be lucky to replace the marine Prowlers at this point. There goes some more money it was going to save on logistics.
But speaking of owlers.
>when the air force realizes how important communications and radar jamming are in protecting the troops
>>29525511
>almost every F-35 vs A-10 argument here has played out like this
That's what I was fucking saying! The other poster was saying that F-35 supporters never claimed that it could replace the A-10. I said that's not true.
>>29525641
the F-35 isn't replacing Growlers. It's replacing the F-16, the Harrier, and the F/A-18C. It's not even replacing the Super Hornet.
>when the air force realizes how important communications and radar jamming are in protecting the troops
>implying the F-35 isn't the most advanced plane in terms of communications, data-links, and sensors, including ECM (not enough to replace a Growler, but still)
>>29525511
>But groundpounders like seeing the BRRT!
Battlefield psychology 101, dude: Morale is important. The BRRT! makes the goatfuckers feel bad while making us feel good.
>>29525689
>thinking the military should form their overall doctrine over what makes the grunts cheer loudest when it fires
>>29525654
I mean, you can easily dig out archive posts proving that wrong.
http://desustorage.org/k/thread/28372799/#28381181
http://desustorage.org/k/thread/29277029
http://desustorage.org/k/thread/29113389/#29120899
Or most results when you type in 'low and slow cas' into the archive, really.
Also pretty funny to see how prescient
http://desustorage.org/k/thread/18102039/#18103551
turned out to be.
>>29525668
CAS was specifically mentioned when the problems with the F-35s sensors were called out. It's not like they're so much better than a pod with better gear but a limited arch.
I also said the F-35 would be lucky to replace marine PROWLERS. I never said it was replacing growlers or super hornets so I don't know why the fuck you even said that.
>implying the F-35 can beat the Growler in communications or ECM
The growler can triangulate enemy communications to generate weapons lock. The growler can jam every radar wave length and is the only aircraft with planned access to the next generation jammer.
Oh and the Growler could be getting in on LPI data links just like the F-35.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2012/06/navy-researchers-tap-rockwell-collins-to-develop-new-high-throughput-airborne-tactical-data-link-technology.html
>>29525872
>CAS was specifically mentioned when the problems with the F-35s sensors were called out. It's not like they're so much better than a pod with better gear but a limited arch.
EODAS is basically a built in targeting pod on massive steroids with full 360 degree coverage. No other US aircraft has that kind of capability.
>I also said the F-35 would be lucky to replace marine PROWLERS. I never said it was replacing growlers or super hornets so I don't know why the fuck you even said that.
All of the Prowlers have been retired already, since the Growlers are their direct replacement. Your statement here makes no sense.
>The growler can triangulate enemy communications to generate weapons lock. The growler can jam every radar wave length and is the only aircraft with planned access to the next generation jammer.
The F-35 can do most of that too, though probably not quite as well since it's a multirole strike craft and not a dedicated EW plane.
>Oh and the Growler could be getting in on LPI data links just like the F-35.
Good for them. Something else that can help take some of the workload off F-35s.
>>29525911
>All of the Prowlers have been retired already, since the Growlers are their direct replacement. Your statement here makes no sense.
Whoops, I confused those with Navy Prowlers. But the Marine Prowlers aren't going to be staying in service for much longer, anyways. They're due to be retired in 2019.
>>29525872
>I never said it was replacing growlers
>said after posting a picture of a growler
>>29525041
>F-35 was never intended to replace the A-10 meme.
>>29525911
The Navy retired the Prowler but the Marines did not. The Marines are replacing their prowlers with F-35. That should clear up some things for you.
>>29525925
Read the post again and try and figure out why the re's a Growler.
>>29525966
Honestly I think it'll be a good replacement.
The F-35 will be a great bread and butter fighter bomber.
It might even revive harrier carrier concepts.
>>29525984
>It might even revive harrier carrier concepts.
Well there's one good reason to shun it right there.
The Harrier's a gimmick and it's never been worth the money in comparison to less dramatic but more effective alternatives.
>>29525004
The requirements and candidates for this new aircraft make it sound more like a replacement for the Bronco, not the Warthog. But I wouldn't be surprised if the A-X looks suspiciously like the flying dorito.
>>29525997
You do realize that the F-35B solves a lot of the problems that plagued the Harrier?
>>29525004
The big question is where they get money for this. Anybody who follows military related news knows about the upcoming "bow wave" where various ongoing projects will need to eat each other just to survive. The USAF will not be able to get everything it wants without a substantial increase to their budget, which is unlikely to occur.
>>29525114
F-35 can literally do everything the A-10 does
You could put a 30mm gun and unguided rocket pots under the wing of the F-35
>>29526016
That and Broncos were used against ISIS last year.
>Old faggot like Mccain going muh a-10's
>muh brrt
>muh low & slow cas
>muh troops anecdotal stories about how important brrrrrt is
>>29526051
just checked the wiki and found out that they are using the A model for that.
>>29525004
Stupid, unless its nothing like the A-10
The reaper drone does everything the A-10 does, and does it better.
This is going to get people killed.
>>29526051
The F35 can't lose an engine and fly home.
The A10 can.
>>29526230
f-35 is stealth so it won't be hit by anything
>>29525997
>Well there's one good reason to shun it right there.
>I think doubleing americas naval offensive power is dumb for no reason at all.
USS Bataan and USS Bonhomme Richard did some major, major work in OIF.
Kill yourself, you cretinous fuck
>>29526230
That's hardly optimal. It's better not to get hit at all. A mission kill is still a kill.
>>29525709
Are you saying that the morale effect is insignificant? I say you should keep the A-10's.. and paint them ...RED.
I want the A-X option please
>>29525689
And huge, sudden explosions don't do the same. Okay
>>29525689
You know what's more effective than scaring goatfuckers? Killing them.
>>29526242
>laughingserbians.jpg
>>29526322
The baitiest of bait.
>>29526322
>One kill among literally thousands of sorties
>More of a result of poor mission planning than any fault of the aircraft
Kill yourself.
>Reminder that the A-10 suffered the worst losses in Desert Storm and pilot survivability was equal to the F-16
>>29526322
Shoot down all the f117s you want. At the end of the day you are still serbian.
>>29525577
>With the cost per flight hour difference they could easily rack up 23x the flight hours with a Super Tucano vs the A-10
That would honestly scare me much more than the BRRRTTTTTT ever could.
>>29525966
yes, units with the A-10 will be losing them and being replaced with the F-35. But the A-10's roles and capabilities were not part of the design of the F-35. The F-35 is not replacing the A-10, the A-10 is being retired and the units are being switched over to F-35's. Subtle difference.
>>29526024
Sunk cost fallacy.
Hahahahaa naw I'm just kidding. If we throw enough money at this program it's bound to work out eventually. We just need to throw more money at it.
>>29525997
except the F-35 won't have any of the shitty issues that the Harrier had, and will mean that all the USMC carriers the US has will now be able to fully supplement the fleet carriers.
>>29526230
not being hit at all is better than being hit and having a chance of surviving.
There's virtually no chance of a durka shooting down an F-35. But any Haji with a DShK, Igla/Strela, or ZU-23 can rape an A-10.
designing a plane to try and survive being hit is an obsolete idea. The A-10 got raped in the gulf war and they realized this.
>>29526365
exactly. Sure, more pilots that get hit in the A-10 survive. But the A-10 also gets hit a fuck of a lot more often.
>>29526260
Sure they did, but the same money could have easily procured in excess of 5 times the firepower with other desirable characteristics thrown in for free, that's the point, you thoroughly average person you.
>>29526618
>Raped
Over 8,000 sorties in Gulf War. Only shot down 6 times.
How fucking ridiculous are your standards?
>>29526123
>Muh more money equals more better.
>>29526730
A-10 isn't cheap
>>29526712
go find the stats on it. The A-10 had a higher combat loss rate than the other jets like the F-16 or F/A-18.
So yes, relatively speaking, it got raped. And there's of course the well-known case of it needing to be pulled back from engaging the republican guard units because they had competent IADS, and the A-10 was getting shot up too badly so they had to withdraw and let other jets bomb them.
>>29526712
>intentionally not counting damaged aircraft
>>29526260
Sure they did, but not as some kind of mini-carrier with the expeditionary forces replaced by more aviation. THAT scenario, the one so many people keep shilling, happened once in the entire history of US Landing Hulls, during GW1.
>>29526712
http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100927-065.pdf
Starts at Pg.641. Note that this is in combat losses. Other airframes were lost outside of combat due to damage which is not included in the first table. Others provide damage and overall attrition. The wikipedia disprecny is do to two A-10s being lost due to damage sustained in combat leading to a crash before they could RTB. Losses were due to IR and AAA.
A-10s made up the majority of all USAF airframes lost during Desert Storm. The "8000" sorties involved the use of Mavericks, an air to ground missile that could be used by a variety of airframes.
We all agree that the F-35 is a massive money pit that has produced only mediocre results in actual testing, right?
>>29526806
I would also like to note that 3 of those losses occurred on the same day, 17-Jan-91 as shown on page 642.
>>29526712
F/A-18 - 4551 sorties, 10 damaged including 2 losses - 0.0022% casualty rate
F-16 - 13340 sorties, ~10 damaged in combat, 7 lost - 0.00075% casualty rate
I don't think you get it. The A-10 suffering 6 losses in 8000 sorties, and more damaged, IS a lot.
>>29526821
We all agree the F-35 has produced exceptional results while costing the same as existing gen 4.5 aircraft, right?
>>29526759
3 F-16s and 2 F-18s were shot down. That's not a big difference. Or at the very least, not worthy of the term "rape". Also, those falcons were downed by by the same weapons that got half of the warthogs.
>>29526852
except the F-16 flew way more sorties.
Like I said, the A-10 had a higher loss/damage rate than any other aircraft.
>>29526774
Damaged does not equal shot down. Or do you think a shredded tail fin is the same as a crater in the ground?
>>29526852
It is when you consider the A-10 never flew in heavily defended airspace like Baghdad.
>>29526883
even comparing planes shot down, the simple fact is that the A-10 had a higher I-got-shot-down-and-plane-blew-up than any other plane. And like anon mentioned, it was routinely avoiding the heaviest-defended areas.
Seriously, the meme about the A-10's survivability needs to die.
>>29526883
When the A-10 with a shredded tail was out of action for the remainder of the war, yes it is the same.
>>29526874
I'm not disagreeing with the loss rate. My quibble was with the hyperbole in the use of "raped".
>>29526915
oh, I'm sorry. Would you prefer "deadlier to its pilots than any other fighter"? or "rekt"?
Sorry, but I consider it got raped when they had to pull it back from engaging the ground targets that had any sort of defenses, meanwhile the Falcons and Hornets were doing fine on those targets.
>>29526712
>>29526806
>>29526838
The majority of A-10 sorties in Desert Storm were flown up at medium altitude with them lobbing Mavericks at targets beyond the range of MANPADS and AAA. The heaviest losses came when they decided to let them drop down lower to do gun runs.
Then suddenly they lost 3 aircraft in a day so they cut that shit out and withdrew them.
>>29526730
>muh simple and ''''cheap'''' equals better
>>29526915
Considering the context, I think rape is appropriate.
http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100927-065.pdf
According to pg. 651, table 250
We have:
>Highest First Day Aircraft Loss of the War, which resulted in a complete change in tactics that defeats the airframes intended purpose
>Highest USAF Airframe Lost
>Highest Damaged Airframes
Which is in occurence with >>29526940 statement, that compared to other airframes performing similar missions, the A-10 was raped.
This all summarized by: >>29526972
>Textron Scorpion
IS IT FINALLY TIME?!
>>29525004
>A-29 Super Tucano
>AT-6 Trainer
What the fuck am I reading?
>>29527004
I want to know more about this plane.
What can it do armament-wise?
>>29526990
One big thing to note that's never really discussed about the Gulf War was that it really cemented the doctrine of medium-altitude operating.
The majority of combat sorties during the war were flown at medium altitudes, and those that were regularly flying low (Tornadoes and A-10s) were suffering the heaviest losses.
Pretty much what the war showed was that SEAD could fairly easily knock out the biggest and scariest air defenses, but they weren't able to take out smaller distributed elements like AAA and MANPADS.
>>29527079
Hellfires, SDBs, Paveway 4, JDAM, Griffins, and DAGR (which isn't that useful since I think the Air Force is going with APKWS). It has 6 external hardpoints as well as an internal bay.
Only real downside is I haven't found it to be capable of carrying the Maverick. It probably can, I just don't think they've done compatibility testing yet.
>>29527239
It's an interesting aircraft, looks nice from the capability of armament and price. I do notice it has no armor however.
>>29527239
Can it mount a gunpod?
>>29527296
COIN aircraft are meant to operate in environments where it's already assumed AA won't be major threat.
>>29527312
According to Textron, though I can't find a pic of it on the aircraft, only concept art. The prez of Textron doesn't seem to think it's relevant though.
>The jet can also host a gun pod, either of the 50 caliber or 20mm kind, although Anderson echoed the belief held by Air Force officials that the future of CAS is not a gun, but rather precision munitions.
>"I don't know if you'd consider a gun the best weapon for modern CAS because guns, by their nature, are aerial weapons," Anderson said. "But if the ground commander wants a platform with a gun on it, we can host a gun. It's really dictated by the nature of the operation and the threat we're trying to engage."
>>29525004
>Hey, the replacement, one-for-one, for the A-10 is the F-35
Because the A-10's role was outdated within a few years of its design, and the F-35 fits modern doctrine.
>>29527350
So in other words this plane does not actually fill the A10s role. It's an alternative to a Cessna with a .50 hung out the side.
>>29527510
The replacement for the A-10 doesn't need to have every feature the A-10 has.
It's cheap, both in terms of price and in operating cost (less than $3000 an hour), and it can sling PGMs. It also has multiple times the TOS as the A-10.
>>29527510
>fly above 8,000 feet
>manpads and hadji AAA can't touch you
>can now operate planes that cost 1/23 as much to fly
>>29526972
right.....so doing those things that people say the A-10 is so special at doing. As soon as it stops playing like a medium-altitude PGM truck, it gets wrecked by air defenses. Shocker. Hence why a BRRT plane is obsolete.
>>29527028
when you just need something to loiter above a hajihut somewhere in buttfuckistan for a couple hours and then drop a bomb or two or do a strafing run against goat fuckers with AKs, then yeah, a Super Tucano is plenty.
>>29527558
this is where people get hung up. They think that the plane replacing the A-10 needs to have all the exact same features as the A-10. It doesn't, not when the role the A-10 was devised for has been obsolete for 20+ years.
>>29527510
>It's an alternative to a Cessna with a .50 hung out the side.
So is the A-10.
The A-10 falls into this interesting niche were it's vastly more capable than your average COIN platform while still falling flat compared to any real combat aircraft. The Gulf War showed that even the A-10 wasn't capable of operating at low altitudes against an enemy with even the most modest air defenses (read: MANPADS and mobile AAA). While it did do fine sitting up at 15,000ft lobbing PGMs at things, there's plenty of other planes that do the job a hell of a lot better (and arguably cheaper).
If you're in an environment that's got no air defenses at all, then an unarmored COIN plane will do just as good as the A-10 (arguably better, in fact, thanks to the retardedly basic avionics suite the A-10 has) for a similar price. Realistically, the only mission that's still relevant that the A-10 needs a replacement for is helicopter escort, which is something a generic COIN plane could do perfectly well.
>>29527693
>The Gulf War showed that even the A-10 wasn't capable of operating at low altitudes against an enemy with even the most modest air defenses (read: MANPADS and mobile AAA).
And yet others will tell you it did the exact opposite. Kim made it home and landed that plane. Had she been in anything besides an A-10 she'd have been shot down and probably died in the process.
Sure it's hazardous and you don't want to do it when you don't have to. And sure a few have been lost doing it. But with any other plane being shot down in that situation wouldn't be a risk, it would be a certainty.
>If you're in an environment that's got no air defenses at all, then an unarmored COIN plane will do just as good as the A-10 (arguably better, in fact, thanks to the retardedly basic avionics suite the A-10 has) for a similar price.
That's setting an entirely unrealistic bar for air defenses though. It's like you're only considering the most extreme possibilities - no air defense at all, or thickets of missiles etc.
Where the A-10 is strongest is in an environment where there is a plethora of relatively low-powered AA. Exactly what you expect in brush-wars where the enemy doesn't have many if any good SAMs but will still press old AA guns and even massed small arms into use at every opportunity.
A WWI vintage AA gun will trash any of your COIN planes, an A-10 can take it.
>>29527693
this.
>>29527948
Kim? Well whoever that is, they probably wouldn't have gotten hit in the first place had they been flying in an F-16 or F/A-18. There's videos out there of F-16's defeating half a dozen (and more) subsequent SAMs launched at them.
>>29527948
nobody is talking about the extreme end of thickets of missiles. We're talking about basic 60's era MANPADS and super-common mobile AAA vehicles (like a ZU-23 strapped to a flatbed truck). The A-10 can't even operate against that level of defenses.
>>29527948
>Had she been in anything besides an A-10
Her plane wouldn't have even been damaged because she wouldn't have been flying low.
>It's like you're only considering the most extreme possibilities - no air defense at all, or thickets of missiles etc.
No, that's not what I was saying. The day where the A-10s decided to go low was well after the initial SEAD campaign was finished, and the most that could be expected from the Iraqis was literally a handful of MANPADS and small mobile AAA pieces. Or in other words:
>an environment where there is a plethora of relatively low-powered AA
filled with a bunch of
>vintage AA guns
"B-but we got a damaged plane home!" Still means you were in a position to get damaged in the first place. The fact is that the A-10 suffered an absurdly high loss rate in the very brief time they actually employed them as designed in the Gulf War.
>>29528056
>Kim?
The A-10 pilot who flew this plane I have been posting pictures of back to Kuwait.
Educate yourself anon.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/kimcampbell.html
>>29528144
>educate yourself
>herp derp lol you so dumb you don't know this one specific pilot lol uneducated
>spouts off BS about muh A-10 survivability
>my anecdote means I'm educated
Are we going to get BRRRRT Broncos?
>>29528175
I sure as shit hope so. The Bronco is pretty much exactly what we need to "replace" the A-10.
>>29528112
a CAS aircraft will most always be in a position where it can/will be damaged.
therefore, when the plane is able to get home even heavily damaged is very good.
>muh cas can be high altitude/and faster
based on what the grunts say, that's wrong.
and their opinion fucking matters.
A10 is best CAS aircraft, get over it.
>>29528175
>>29528183
Is the Bronco big enough to hold a GAU-8?
>>29528185
>implying highschool dropouts given M16's and thrown into buttfuckistan know anything about what the best fighters are for a given mission
>implying they aren't just a bunch of /k/-tier BRRT lovers because everyone loves the sound of BRRRT
>>29528205
and can it stay in flight while doing so?
as much as I love turboprops, I'm not sure it has the thrust to hold a GAU8, ammo, pilot protection, bombs, etc.
>muh GAU-8
no, this theoretical CAS/COIN plane like a Bronco or Super Tucano doesn't need the fucking 30mm GAU-8.
>>29528185
>a CAS aircraft will most always be in a position where it can/will be damaged.
Not at all. The vast majority of CAS sorties from the Gulf War onwards were conducted by planes orbiting at medium altitudes lobbing PGMs. It's just as effective (if not moreso), and it allows aircraft to provide support for a wider area in a shorter period of time.
>opinions of grunts
>mattering ever
The grunts don't see anything beyond "oh shit a cool plane came down and shot shit up!"
They don't see the logistical and operational side of things, and they sure as shit aren't doing the kind of post-strike analysis that'd validate their feelings about an obsolete CAS bird.
>>29528205
No, but it wouldn't really need a GAU-8. Better idea would be giving it a turret-mounted gun with some kind of FLIR system so that they can orbit around shooting shit without having to fly directly at targets.
>>29528240
exactly. the only time you can operate low altitude CAS is when there are no air defenses. Enter Super Tucano/Bronco/etc.
>>29528240
Broncos have like a three hour loiter time, we need to give it a belly mounted turret with enough ammo for three continuous hours of shooting.
Just orbit the battlefield raining lead on every motherfucker.
>>29528240
so basically you want a bronco with a P61 turret on the belly and have it operate like a AC130?
>>29528276
Pretty much, yeah, that'd be great.
Wait are the Super Tucano and Bronco actually being considered as new CAS planes?
How would those ancient things be better than the A-10?
Are we bringing props back?
>>29528254
And if you have that perfect situation then here is your perfect CAS plane.
When you don't have it, the A-10 is better.
>>29528307
>When you don't have it, the A-10 is better
And literally anything else would be even better than the A-10.
>>29528307
except you're wrong. When there are literally any air defenses like MANPADS and mobile AAA, the A-10 gets wrecked and has to fly at medium altitude dropping PGMs, same as any other fighter.
seriously, these idea of the A-10 cruising around at low altitude blasting away with it's 30mm GAU-8 and shrugging off machine gun fire and AA is absurd.
>>29526579
Right. But the fact that a large number of organizations were considering replacing the A-10 with the F-35, even THOUGH IT WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR IT, was something that rustled a lot of jimmies
Also,
>There may be prop driven fast movers providing ground attack in my lifetime
I knew I should have stayed in the Army.
>>29528285
If low and slow gun support AND PGM capability in uncontested airspace are needed, like against ISIS or in Iraq/Afghanistan, why bother with an expensive, ancient jet?
>>29528276
>>29528284
Been done befo'
>>29528323
In Desert Storm, for example, 5274 Mavericks fired and almost no gun runs.
Even better, the A-10 needed the Maverick because it was the only way to put a FLIR camera on it at the time so it could operate at night.
>>29528326
why is this so hard to understand?
the A-10 was designed for a certain role.
That role is obsolete.
It has since been shoehorned into other roles
The F-35 can fill all of those roles. A cheap prop plane can fill the COIN role. The A-10 is wholly unnecessary. So yes, two planes that aren't the A-10 are replacing the A-10.
>>29528307
the problem with that is that it's stuck in a pylon turn which every habib with AA will be able to figure out and shoot at.
a modern B25H would be great.
replace the 75mm with an abrams gun and the 4 M2s with the gun that a F35 has, modern turboprops and all the avionics overhaul.
of course it can still shit bombs and do runs on targets, plus it has a few 50 cal turrets so it can orbit and fuck shit up that way as well.
>>29528307
>using a DC-3 as a gunship
>doing more work by inflicting hearing loss on the enemy than by actually shooting them
As someone who is madly in love with the A-10, and spent a tour in Afghanistan, the fact of the matter is, the A-10 is an outdated concept.
It made sense back when it was designed because "precision" munitions was a pretty loosely used term. Now, after 30-some-odd years, bombs are actually MORE accurate than the 30mm cannon it has on it's nose, and the only real advantage it has is it's ability to re-attack faster than any other airframe.
Enter the Tucano and the Bronco, which are much cheaper, much easier to maintain (muh props), and are just as useful in the one situation the A-10 has an advantage in.
She's a big, ugly, glorious beast, but she was designed for a war that never came.
if you think for even a second that the US military would even consider a prop plane for CAS you're a moron
>>29528364
>turns the area into a nuclear wasteland by its exhaust alone
I need turboprop attackers back in my life.
>>29528357
The fuck are you talking about?
>>29526230
And the A-10 can't fly in an active threat airspace and not get shot to pieces.
The F-35 can.
>>29527948
>Kim made it home and landed that plane. Had she been in anything besides an A-10 she'd have been shot down and probably died in the process.
Kim would not have been hit by AA if she was flying something else.
>>29528358
>the problem with that is that it's stuck in a pylon turn which every habib with AA will be able to figure out and shoot at.
Which is why I only recommend it in the ideal situation the former anon kept positing - the one where they don't have AA. The one where these COIN planes could fill the role. The old puff could do even better, given that environment.
>>29528185
>based on what the grunts say,
The same grunts that claimed the M1 carbine couldn't shoot through winter coats? No thanks, I'd rather base what's needed on studies of what's the most effective and not on the opinion of someone fresh out of high school.
>>29528415
>F35
>CAS
all it can do is paint targets, drop a few bombs and fuck off.
the gun is worthless.
is that nice?
yeah.
can the F16/F18/F22 do that?
of course it can.
if you really need concentrated death, you need something like an A10.
low, slow, and with a bigass gun.
therefore, we need to modernize the P61 and bring it back.
>>29528307
>>29528379
It was actually designed post Red Flag, when low-level bombing had been turned into an art form, but before General Creech's reforms to medium-altitude, high-tech precision bombing that was devastating to Iraqi forces in Desert Storm.
>>29528447
>if you really need concentrated death
you call in a B-1 loaded with cluster bombs.
>>29528447
>paint targets
>drop bombs
>fuck off
that's CAS m8. That's what 99% of CAS missions consist of.
>muh low and slow
no. Low and slow against anything that can shoot back is suicide. If it's safe to go low and slow, you can send in a prop plane.
>>29528185
>Based on what grunts say
Yeah, and based on what people who actually are on the ground directing and controlling CAS say, the precision of PGM's has improved to the point where you don't NEED a 30mm cannon in order to do shit.
Literally the only advantage the A-10 has over any other air platform as a CAS machine is the fact that it turn around to re-attack faster.
The 30mm cool as fuck and it's fucks shit up six ways to sunday, but a 500lbs JDAM fucks up a bunch of durkas just as well.
>>29528463
I don't see how that contradicts what I said at all.
>>29527296
Armor is dead weight against any semi-modern air defense system with a semi-competent user behind it.
>>29528447
>all it can do is paint targets, drop a few bombs and fuck off.
24 SDBs (6 A2G pylons with 4 each) is just a few? OK then.
>the gun is worthless.
Ultra-high precision controlled bursts with rounds actually optimized for expected targets is worthless? OK then.
>can the F16/F18/F22 do that?
Nowhere near as well.
>>29528488
I didn't intend to, just add on.
>>29528477
>The 30mm cool as fuck and it's fucks shit up six ways to sunday, but a 500lbs JDAM fucks up a bunch of durkas just as well.
But the 30mm loads out with over 1100 rounds. How many JDAMs can you carry again?
If your CAS plane is out of loadout and you're waiting for another one to come in that gun is going to start sounding really handy.
>>29528476
>>muh low and slow
>no. Low and slow against anything that can shoot back is suicide. If it's safe to go low and slow, you can send in a prop plane.
so if we need to replace the A10 because muh outdated, then we use a prop plane.
therefore we take something like a C123, attach a GAU and a tank gun to it like a B25H, and call it done.
>>29527510
>the A-10s role
The A-10s role is obsolete. It is too expensive for no-threat COIN environments and has shit survivability in any kind of actual threat environment. Low-level attacks against a symmetrical threat made sense in the '70s, before the evolution pf more modern AAA, short-range SAMs and the massive proliferation of MANPADs made it a suicide mission.
>“I would never look at you and tell you, 'Hey, the replacement, one-for-one, for the A-10 is the F-35,' ” said Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein last month.
>I would never do what the Air Force has been doing for months
>>29528526
>Maybe 3-4 bursts worth of ammo
>as if you can't carry more GBU-38/Bs on both the A-10 and the F-35
>>29528240
>>29528276
>>29528284
>>29528339
Hey...
guys...
hey guys, would it work to mount a few 120mm tank guns with autoloaders to the underside of a B52 and use that for CAS?
I know it should to be replaced, but nothing will replace best plane in my heart
>>29528285
No being considered by any countries with competent armed forces,
>>29526230
F-35 can engage with more munitions (JDAM) than A-10 from an altitude that MANPAD and AAA cannon fire couldn't touch. The GAU neat, but isn't that great when weighed against tonnes of bombs
>>29528526
What the fuck do you think A-10's are doing, flying around Sniping the Taliban with a single 30mm round?
They use a significant percentage of that 1100 rounds with each run. The point that was being made was that the airframe was designed at a time when a gun run was actually more accurate than bombs are, and that is no longer the case.
Anything an A-10 can do, a prop can now do cheaper with better maintenance (e.g. carry higher loadouts, do low and slow gun runs, etc) with the same limitations (requires air superiority and a lack of hostile Anti-Aircraft). Most CAS (MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOST) is done with bombs now, from standoff, which ANY plane can do, and the bombs are no longer less accurate than the GAU-8.
>>29528589
probably.
since the guns would be at an angle, dealing with recoil would be interesting.
you would probably want a gau down there too just to fuck up what you cant/dont want to use a 120mm on.
>>29528185
>based on what the grunts say, that's wrong.
Based on the actual data instead of shitty and useless anecdotes, it's a proven fact and you're wrong.
>and their opinion fucking matters.
No, no it does not. Private Chucklefuck can think whatever he wants, he remains an ignorant little dipshit private and will be ignored when his opinion makes no factual sense.
No workable military ever is run by the enlisted. AND FOR GOOD FUCKING REASON!
>>29528589
>>29528627
>hey guys, let's attach a battleship turret to the bottom of a B52 with a coaxial GAU-8
Anyone want to make a mockup of this? It sounds awesome.
could we attach a bushmaster to a bronco for CAS?
have the bushmaster mounted like the A10s gun is.
maybe add a roof and belly turret with quad .50s for extra fuck shit up ability
>>29528504
found the F35 weapons troop
The Strike Eagle is a superior air to ground platform, discuss.
>>29528714
>add a roof turret
>>29528799
you know, like a P61.
the top turret.
so you can have it shoot behind the plane, to the side, whatever.
would it be retarded?
yes
would it make the plane the best dressed kid on the short bus?
yes
>>29528792
F-15E is for strike missions.
F-35 is a light multirole.
Different planes
>>29528847
yeah but doesn't the F35 play as strike most of the time?
dogfights just don't happen anymore so it's not like that's a big issue, all it's gonna do is paint targets for missile trucks or shit bombs for CAS, something the F15E can already do just fine.
>>29525004
Considering current procurement it is fucking nothing. They will spend some millions to the powerpoint presentations and then close the project.
>>29528869
sure?
What's your point?
The F-15E is fine right now, and they're still working on making new weapons like the SDB work well with it, so it still has use.
I wouldn't say it's superior to the F-35, not at all. It's different, and certainly capable, and not worth retiring.
>>29528904
well why do we need the F35?
A10 is CAS aircraft and F15E is strike.
F35 tries to do both and fucks it all up.
OMG you fags really make me laugh.
Grab those old B-52 and line their bellies with these, I want to see it in action.
>>29528939
Dammit where did the pic go?
>>29528931
lol really? that's your argument? That we don't need the F-35 because of two other planes it's not replacing?
It's replacing the F-16, the F/A-18C, and the Harrier. It's infinitely better than the Harrier and gives the marines true mini-carrier capability that can complement the fleet carriers. It has can carry the same payload internally as a fully-laden F-16, and at double the range, with stealth and better sensors. It has the kinematic performance of a Super Hornet, but with better acceleration.
It's a multirole plane. Do you know what that means?
>>29528792
Strike Eagle isn't being retired, argument irrelevant.
>>29528959
also, it has vastly greater CAS capability than the A-10, and vastly greater strike capability than the F-15E.
>>29528959
>two other planes it's not replacing?
*cough*
>>29525966
Lockheed Martin disagrees with you, shill.
>>29529105
The Air Force has been waffling on that for a few years now because of the sequester cuts, then sudden congressional demands, it's a fucking circus.
>>29529105
Doesn't say F-15E anywhere on there.
>>29529105
you're factually incorrect. The F-35 is not replacing the F-15E. The F-15E is not being retired and will continue to be used for strike missions and CAS.
And the F-35 isn't directly replacing the A-10 the same way it's replacing the F-16 or F/A-18. The A-10 is being retired because it's old as fuck and obsolete. Those squadrons will get the F-35 and become relevant again. So yes, it's "replacing" the A-10 in the military, but it is not a plane that functions as a replacement for the A-10 as a platform because that's not needed.
This isn't that complicated. Stop being stupid on purpose.
>>29529848
if you thing the A-10 is not needed or the role it plays, you're a fucking idiot.
>>29529937
no, I'm just in agreement with the experts in the military.
>inb4 military experts are wrong
The A-10 is not needed. The role it was designed for is obsolete. And the roles it's filling now can be filled by other aircraft.
>>29529972
This is complete bullshit. I have hundreds of CAS controls in country. The A-10 is a stand out. No other fixed or rotary wing can do its job. The A-10 is most definitely needed. As long as troops are in contact on the ground, you will need a direct CAS platform. Half of the fucking time you have no idea where your being engaged from. Long range CAS is a complete pipe dream.
Could someone tell me what exactly the gun on the A-10 can do that regular guided bombs can't?
>>29526296
No it really doesn't have the same effect. Seeing a body that looks like a pile of ground chuck is much more striking than finding a foot in a field.
>>29530017
sure. in some situations, particularly COIN ops, direct CAS can be useful.
What can an A-10 do that a lighter prop plane can't do in that situation? if your only answer is "muh armor" or "muh 30mm", then fuck off.
>>29530028
Make grunts cream their pants.
>>29529355
>>29529848
Yeah I didn't say anything about the F15 dolt. You see the highlight on the word A-10? You think it might be there for a reason?
Fucking retards.
>>29530142
You brought up the F-15E first.
>>29528240
>The grunts don't see anything beyond "oh shit a cool plane came down and shot shit up!"
replacing grunts is cheaper than replacing airframes that fly low.
Look, I live in McSally's district.
Congress is going to make the AF fly A10's until their wings fall off or they turn into little piles of money that can be redistributed to their reelection campaigns.
>>29528379
>>She's a big, ugly, glorious beast, but she was designed for a war that never came.
*she prevented the war that never came
>>29530196
>implying Vladimir was sitting in his bunker in Moscow saying "surely we cannot be of invading europe because of americanski warthog beast plane"
>>29530196
No, perestroika did that.
>>29530161
I never said a word about the F-15.
>>29530273
ok then the other guy did, who I was responding to. >>29528792
in which case, I was responding to the guy who brought up the F-15E, and you're a retard for not making it clear. There's literally no way for me to tell which posts are you and which posts are him. I am responding to a guy mentioning the F-15E, and you jump in saying something and then get pissy when I assume you're the guy I was responding to.
stop being a retard.
>>29530348
seriously, make your comments clear instead of being a vague piece of shit who then gets all snarky when the other person doesn't know what the fuck you are commenting about.
>>29530062
This honestly is my last post in this thread, I'm arguing with people who really don't know anything other than what they have read on the internet. Go to a JTAC / JFO school and actually learn about CAS.
You don't want a lighter prop plane. You want time on station, payload, sensors and survivability. (Multiple engines, multiple fail-safe systems, and yes Ground fire protection)
The ability to to talk to the pilot and view his VDL feed, a good LST/D, up to date sensor suite. The A-10 has a fucking massively wide array when it comes to payload. Its not just the 30mm, they can carry a fuckton of different ordinance. LGBs, JDAMs, GPB, Clusters, Mavericks, rockets, Almost anything you can strap to a fucking pylon they can employ. To include AA Sidewinders.
The A10 gets to your position quickly, and they are quiet until they are directly above you. There sensors make it quick work of finding the guys who are raking you with PKMs and you have no fucking clue where its coming from. They offer every solution from low collateral 250 SDB, to fucking cluster munitions to being able to take out armor through LGBs whether it be self lased or observer. And yes they also have the 30mm which is one of the best choices for lightly armored vehicles and enemy troops.
I have worked with plenty of F-16's and 18's who would not be given clearance to drop ordinance but were allowed to do a show of force and then a gun run. And guess what. THEY FUCKING SUCK and MISSED EVERY SINGLE OCCASION.
A-10's can terrain map, Ac-130's can not.
>>29530162
If munitions are dropped, there will always be someone on the ground. Always. I fucking promise you.
>>29530396
>implying a prop plane can't have the same range or payload or sensors as an A-10
>implying survivability matters when you can only use it in that low-altitude CAS role when there are no threats
>implying a prop plane can't have multiple engines, failsafes, etc.
>implying a prop plane can't have all the same data and sensor and avionics suites that an A-10 can
>implying a prop plane can't carry all the same weapons
>implying an A-10 is much faster than a prop plane (it's not)
>implying a prop plane can't be quieter than an A-10, or at least the same
>implying once again that a prop plane can't have all those same sensors
so many implications. Are you Vlad the Implyer himself?
>>29530396
Would you be able to answer my question here before you go? >>29530028
Why not bring these back?
Bonus can land on a carrier
>>29530348
Your post referenced both the F15 and the A-10. My response referenced the A-10 specifically, highlighted. Your response? To pretend the F-15 was all you mentioned.
Fuck off.
>>29530396
The A-10 is vastly overpriced for a no-threat COIN role
And really wouldn't be necessary if the troops had proper weaponry, proper armored support, proper UAV coverage.
And if the army ran cheap prop planes for armed recon purposes.
>>29530452
seriously, even a Super Tucano, which is already getting old, and is hardly a high-tech plane of which the US could develop if they really wanted to, and it can almost match the A-10's specs other than raw poundage of ordinance. A twin-engine version of the Super Tucano-type of plane could easily match the A-10's specs.
>>29530396
>You don't want a lighter prop plane. You want time on station, payload, sensors and survivability. (Multiple engines, multiple fail-safe systems, and yes Ground fire protection)
All things that the proposed COIN planes can get. A-10 tier protection is overkill for COIN ops and plain useless in actual A2/AD environments.
>The ability to to talk to the pilot and view his VDL feed, a good LST/D, up to date sensor suite. The A-10 has a fucking massively wide array when it comes to payload. Its not just the 30mm, they can carry a fuckton of different ordinance. LGBs, JDAMs, GPB, Clusters, Mavericks, rockets, Almost anything you can strap to a fucking pylon they can employ. To include AA Sidewinders.
Literally every other plane in the US inventory can carry these weapons save for the GAU-8, and they can fly faster and higher than the A-10 can.
>The A10 gets to your position quickly, and they are quiet until they are directly above you. There sensors make it quick work of finding the guys who are raking you with PKMs and you have no fucking clue where its coming from. They offer every solution from low collateral 250 SDB, to fucking cluster munitions to being able to take out armor through LGBs whether it be self lased or observer. And yes they also have the 30mm which is one of the best choices for lightly armored vehicles and enemy troops.
A-10s rely on the same external targeting pods all other US aircraft use. Plus flying low like that is just asking to get shot down by short range, mobile AA. The GAU-8 also has rather large dispersion that doesn't make it any more precise than a PGM.
>I have worked with plenty of F-16's and 18's who would not be given clearance to drop ordinance but were allowed to do a show of force and then a gun run. And guess what. THEY FUCKING SUCK and MISSED EVERY SINGLE OCCASION.
Because the F-16 and F-18's guns are tuned more for air to air combat. Gun runs on ground targets were the last thing on the designers' minds.
>>29530559
>Literally every other plane in the US inventory can carry these weapons save for the GAU-8, and they can fly faster and higher than the A-10 can.
And it must be noted that it'll be a lot easier to add newly developed weapons to the F-35 than to an A-10.
>>29530017
>No other fixed or rotary wing can do its job
It's"job" is obsolete.
>As long as troops are in contact on the ground, you will need a direct CAS platform.
This is quite simply flat out wrong today. We're not in the 70's anymore. A PGM sailing in from 30,000 feet is more accurrate than a gunrun from 300. And similarily, a plane loaded with modern sensor gear can find and identify targets better from 30k feet than the Mk.1 eyeball while zooming by at 300.
Gimme a Reaper loaded with Hellfires (and/or likely SDBs in the future) over an old museum bird any day.
>>29530213
The real funny part is that if the balloon had gon up in the mid-late 80's, the A-10 fleet would have been fucking mulched. The plane was designed at a time when a soviet Motor Rifle Regiment had like 12 Strela MANPADs, four Shilkas and six BRDM-mounted Strela-1 SAMs for air defense. By the mid-late 80s, that same MRR would have been toting around 6 Shilkas or Tunguskas, six MT-LB-mounted Strela-10s, and about FORTY FUCKING IGLAS because the Soviets had seriously fallen in love with the idea of MANPADs and started handing them out like cheap candy. The paradigm that the low altitudes were safer than the high ones had been reversed entirely.
>replace A-10 with cheap turboprop
>WW3 breaks out
>Russian tanks everywhere
>lose New-10s by the dozens to modern AAA and SAMs
Fuck
>>29530469
Alright.
Getting a bomb off the rails is sometimes a shit show. Essentially, the JTAC or Ground Commander has to authorize it's use, Or FAC-A (Jtac qualified pilot). 95% of the time they wont even drop a 250lb Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) They are accurate as fuck and cause very little collateral damage or risk. Even still in 2014 they wouldn't drop within 500m of any building or compound. Obviously the Taliban shoot from the compounds and behind walls through murder holes. Often they would attack us in L shaped ambushes where they would be strug out in two lines. With a bomb you get a certain casualty producing radius. Again, that's IF someone will slap their name on it and own it for the rest of their career. Now the gun obviously strafes, at 90 rounds per second after the first second of 70 rps. These 30mm rounds are explosively tipped and have a very impressive frag pattern. So when you have infantry in a line, you can have the run come in on the same azimuth and pour a lane of death and kill/wound the vast majority. As each round hits a radius around each impact produces casualties, it does not require a direct hit. With all that being said the aircraft is allowed to use its cannon for "defensive" fires. basically if the pilots "believe" the aircraft is being fired upon of has the immediate threat of it. So it works like this, we put the aircraft above us, the chain of command fucks around for 30min deciding not to drop a bomb, and in the mean time the aircraft can employ "defensive" fires and strafe the fuck out of the Taliban with our assistance.
The gun can also be more cost effective then some of the other munitions on board. When employing CAS you always use the most effective and lowest tier option available. You save the Laser Guided shit for when they call up vehicles carrying fighters or they try to escape into an abandoned compound and then you JDAM it. You have the aircraft follow them and then self lase a bomb when they regroup.
>>29530666
>And similarily, a plane loaded with modern sensor gear can find and identify targets better from 30k feet than the Mk.1 eyeball while zooming by at 300.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2q65qOl1tM
>>29530396
A-10's cannot terrain map. They have no radar.
Go and stay gone.
>>29530706
>keep A-10
>WW3 breaks out
>Russian tanks everywhere
>lose A-10s by the dozens because they effectively have ZERO survivability against modern AAA and SAMs
The only difference is you managed to flush more money down the toilet because the old relic is a hell of a lot more expensive to boot.
>>29530706
But you have 20000 of them becauase they only cost 5 million each
>>29527004
>American Su-24
>>29530745
Meant flying nape of the earth, my apologies.
I used to love you /k/.
What happened to us?
>>29528823
It would add useless weight that could be better served on more munitions, more fuel or sensors and shit
>>29528904
SDB has been integrated on the F-15E for a while now. one of the few aircraft cleared for it. guess what else can't drop it yet?
that's right, the A-10.
the F-15E does Rover. it has more gas. it gets there faster. it drops more weapons, both in terms of payload and in terms of variety. there's a guy on board whose sole job is to get bombs on target.
the F-15E does the A-10's current job. the F-35 will do the A-10's future job.
>>29530730
>can put a bomb into a specific hotel room from 49 miles
holyfuck
>>29528582
Lets not be dishonest.
The GAU-8 fires in 1 second (50 round) or 2 second (120 round) bursts.
>>29525467
Every one of those planes (although the A-10 to the least extent) is unjustifiable expensive to fly in COIN operations.
>>29531257
Yeah that sounds real impressive, but of course
1) Real world performance is likely to be degraded and
2) You have to determine the target location some other way, it doesn't just magically find him. Most likely you need a spotter on the ground. He may be 1-2k yards away and relatively safe or he might be much closer. The closer he is, generally speaking, the more accurate his directions, but the plane is not going to fire at the actual hotel room but at his approximation of its position.
What they actually mean when they say 'hit a specific hotel room' is that if we put a dot *literally* where the spotter says (he's going to be, to a greater or lesser degree, guessing) then put that spot in the middle of the largest hotel room we can find, the bomb is unlikely to aim much further away than one of the corners.
The accuracy of the targeting solution is entirely separate.
If your spotter is (quite naturally) trying to avoid being killed, his targeting solution is likely to incur greater error margins. In the end it's perfectly possible for a rocket that is 'accurate to within a hotel room' to kill someone a half a mile away from the intended target.
This is why it's so hard to get clearance to launch the bombs btw - that's not stupidity, that's actually smart.
The self-defense 'loophole' is smart too though. When you have a plane that's low and slow and in communications with the ground and survivable, he can come in, see for himself where the damn fire is coming from, and take care of it.
The utility of weapons, even military weapons, is not strictly in their ability to destroy, but also in their ability to spare.
>>29526307
Not necessarily. Killing them only makes martyrs. Knowing that inexorable death awaits each and every one of them that even thinks of shooting at US troops makes them a lot less effective than if their leaders tell them they'll be heroes for dying for islam.
>>29531358
nigga that WAS real world performance. it's likely to be BETTER that what was shown.
and randomly dropping in self-defense kills Canadians.
and no, those sorts of coordinate errors are totally bullshit and if you were actually a JTAC you're the worst one i've ever met. go read JFIRES and 50% CEP tables and generate me some Cat II Low coords.
>>29531402
>nigga that WAS real world performance. it's likely to be BETTER that what was shown.
I NEVER believe that a demonstration like this shows me much less than the best possible case. And in nearly 50 years that particular rule has never guided me wrong. Not once.
>and randomly dropping in self-defense kills Canadians.
Why? Are the Canucks making it a habit of going hand to hand with daesh or something? That sound entirely out of character.
>and no, those sorts of coordinate errors are totally bullshit and if you were actually a JTAC you're the worst one i've ever met. go read JFIRES and 50% CEP tables and generate me some Cat II Low coords.
Now that's the kind of challenge that puts a smile on my face. I didn't claim to be a JTAC and I've never been a JTAC in fact.
But I've known a couple and I know they have a tough job and I know they aren't gods and I know they know they have wide margins of error in many cases. Fuck man, you're getting shot at, people might die, people might already be dead. You have a literally impossible job, you do it as well as you can, if it usually works out you're doing good.
Much like my job, except no matter how bad I screw up no one dies.
>>29531520
>Why? Are the Canucks making it a habit of going hand to hand with daesh or something? That sound entirely out of character.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident
>>29531520
let's just say that there's weapon system X. let's say it's a missile.
let's say its range is 69 miles and is accurate to 5 feet.
let's also say that the Army is promoting X a little.
well they don't want the Russians to be able to plan their attacks around the 69 miles and 5 foot accuracy. so they say "Hey, X is good to 40 miles and 20 feet."
THAT is what's happening here. it's not 100%. they're holding back systems and capabilities and modes and resolution and other stuff.
>>29525004
OP how would you like to do some financial recon?
On
>Boeing
>Lockheed Martin
>and others
Following all the news with the right industry insight is sure to be mighty profitable.
>>29526806
>desert storm meme
if I see this retardo fuck argument one more fucking time
>>29531674
>anything that contradicts my misguided worldview is a meme
>>29531703
No, anon, I'm fucking serious. I'm sick and fucking tired of *every* turdburglar motherfucker going straight for that fucking Desert Storm bullshit. NYUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Lemme explain something to you. Down low? Every motherfucker with a gun is shooting at you. The A-10 was built like a tank for this very reason. And even then it was expected to take heavy losses. They called it a "speed bump" for Russian tanks. The point of the A-10 is to go in low so your F-16s and shit (which cost six times as much or so) don't get fucked up.
So "NYUUUUHHH MY CAS PLANE TOOK HEAVY LOSSES" doesn't mean fuckdiddly shit, asshole. You ever fuckin wonder why the IL-2 was the most produced plane of all time? The heavy losses they suffered. And yet they kept cranking them out, because, lo and behold, they were highly cost-effective.
>>29531539
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident
*cough* F-16s *cough*
This is exactly why you want to have different plane for different jobs.
F-16s are great at A2A. That's where they should be used. Since the Taliban had no air force, their was no reason to deploy F-16 in AF. (Except lack of the actual forces needed, of course.)
If F-16s were not in Afghanistan this would not have happened, obviously. If F-16s were somehow in Afghanistan but being used in a solely AA role they would have simply ascended out of range and continued, alerting their base to a possible problem which OTHER planes could be sent to investigate.
>>29531756
yeah, you don't understand air combat.
that's fine, it's very much unnatural.
but you don't have to be too proud to admit it. nothing to be ashamed of. just tell us you don't know shit and we'll educate you (eventually after some mocking).
>>29531539
Good God. Guard/reserve units are such trash it's insane.
The only testimony that actually isnt complete horseshit "Major General Stephen T. Sargeant: A reasonable pilot never would have believed that the fire on the ground was a threat to his flight. And even if he did, turning, descending, and decelerating was an unreasonable reaction. However, disregarding all the alleged reckless maneuvers Maj. Schmidt made to reach the spot where he invoked self-defense, dropping a bomb at that instant was not unreasonable. In other words, if Maj. Schmidt suddenly woke up at 14,000 feet (4,300 m) and four nautical miles (7 km) away from the mystery fire, it would be reasonable to drop a bomb in self-defense.[8]"
Then they try and blame "fog of war" and "go pills" these two fucking schmucks were just being complete faggots.
Oh, well at leas they were held accountable:
Harry Schmidt and William Umbach were officially charged with four counts of negligent manslaughter, eight counts of aggravated assault, and one count of dereliction of duty.
WAIT WTFFFFFF:
Umbach's charges were later dismissed. Schmidt's charges were reduced on June 30, 2003, to just the dereliction of duty charge.
>>29531756
Actually Sempai.... the Taliban did have an air force...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_Taliban
The Afghan Air Force under the Taliban maintained five supersonic MIG-21MFs and 10 Sukhoi-22 fighter-bombers.[2] They also held six Mil Mi-8 helicopters, five Mi-35s, five L-39Cs, six An-12s, 25 An-26s, a dozen An-24/32s, an IL-18, and a Yakovlev.[3]
THE MORE YOU KNNNNOOOW
>>29531773
Yeah I don't think you understand combat either.
And reading that back, I guess I went a little too far. If I were deploying I would have put some F-16s there as a hedge against the unexpected.
But they are seriously great A2A craft but not so good at ground attack, that's not a mistake, and if you are going to convince me it is you'll need either facts or logic, preferably both, not just pretensions of superiority.
>>29531820
F-16s are not air superiority, you fucking idiot. They are light multiroles and it shows in A2A. Against any dedicated fighter they are outmatched in avionics, range, speed, and payload. Saying they are great at A2A id so wrong it hurts. If they were great at A2A the high low mix wouldn't exist.
This is why people call you ignorant.
>>29531880
>Against any dedicated fighter they are outmatched in avionics, range, speed
>speed
>f-16
1.21 niggawats
>>29531820
>The F-16 is not so good at ground attack
>>29531745
>Down low? Every motherfucker with a gun is shooting at you.
Which is exactly why going down low today is a fucking retarded idea in the first place, you goddamn idiot. Low and slow made sense in an era where PGMs were lucky to hit stationary buildings half of the time, most sensor systems on planes were still shit and the most dangerous air defense systems were covering medium and high altitudes. None of which is still the case today. The only thing that has any business going low altitude in a risk area today are UAVs.
And guess what, you gigantic fucking idiotic dipshit? When the A-10s got their shit wrecked in Desert Storm and were called off to instead stomp routing iraqi regulars that had no real AA or coordination left, the F-16s and F-15Es took over flying strikes against the Republican Guard AND GOT THE JOB DONE WITHOUT GETTING THEIR SHIT KICKED IN.
>>29531756
F-16s are perfectly good at ground attack - better than fucking A-10s in a non-permissive environemnt even. There's a reason they're classed as MULTIROLE planes, you mong.
>>29531890
With any meaningful load, it tops out at mach 1.4.
>>29531890
Tiny radar, no fuel so it cant afterburner and this thing called external stores you ignorant fuckwit.
>>29528379
>She's a big, ugly, glorious beast, but she was designed for a war that never came.
Jesus Christ that hit me right in the feels. I grew up thinking I'd be blasting the shit out of commies one day, only to have it all come crashing down. Now all there is to do is fight technologically inferior goatfuckers in shithole countries, while I slowly slip into insanity.
>Where is my great war, my nuclear armageddon?
>Goodnight A-10, my one true love.
>>29531756
>some chuckle fuck took too many amphetamines and dropped a bomb on someone he shouldn't have dropped a bomb on
>F-16 IS BAD GUIZ LOOK AT THIS.
Fuck off, the A-10 has had its fare share of Blue on Blue incidences as well.
>>29531880
>Against any dedicated fighter they are outmatched in avionics, range, speed, and payload.
But not in weaponry or maneuverability.
You're just confirming what I said. They're great A2A planes, dollar for dollar I can't think of anything to beat them.
>>29532059
Su-27+, EF2000, Rafael, F-15, F-14, PAK-FA, F-35, F-22, MiG-23, MiG-29, MiG-25, MiG-31, MiG-35, etc...
>>29527114
(when fighting versus 3rd world countries)
>>29532094
A couple of those might actually beat it, but they're newer models.
The F-14 was a wonderful Air superiority plane in it's time, and I even thought it was retired before its time. But you're not seriously advocating we revive that as a competitor for the F-16? They aren't even the same roles.
The F-15 is a great strike plane. And not a bad interceptor. But dollar for dollar a better pure A2A plane? Just how stoned are you?
There are a couple of Migs on there that are great interceptors too but that's still not the same role.
The only real A2A contender on that list I see as better than the F-16 is the F-22. Which is a great plane, can fill the same niche and clearly better than the F-16. But don't pretend it's not a lot more expensive too.
>>29532059
>1976+40
>maneuverability mattering.
There's a reason why the less maneuverable F-15 has the best AtA record of any fighter ever made.
Weapons is the same as every other fighter in the USAF inventory.
>>29532151
>F-15 isn't the best A2A plane ever made
>100+ kills for no losses in A2A
Pls see >>29532158
>>29525467
>F-35
>loiter
gud 1 m8
>>29532158
>>29532164
F-15 also costs nearly twice as much.
I did say "dollar for dollar."
And also that F-15 is more of an Interceptor than a close fighter. F-16 the opposite. They may well overlap but they're still different roles.
If the A-10 can't penetrate armor and can't feasibly survive hits today, the answer is to give it a bigger gun and proper armor.
>>29532186
Look at its combat radius, then kill yourself
>>29532186
>600nmi+ Combat radius without bags
>optimized for transonic flight
>very little parasitic drag because internal stores
>fuel capacity is equal to the weight of an empty, liquified F-16
>doesn't have good range
gud 1 m8
>>29532248
The F-15C is not a fucking Interceptor. Dollar for dollar the F-15 is cheaper since you won't have to spend money to replace them since they won't get shot down as often.
How much do you think the F-15C and F-16 cost exactly?
