Close Air Support
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Statistics wise, what plane has been used more often in the CAS role, especially now with Coalition air support dealing with ISIS? I can't be the A-10 every time.
>>29809946
I think in desert storm and IOF/IAF it was the B1 and the f-16 respectively.
It was never the a10
>>29809946
The US has been supposedly bombing ISIS for over a year now.
Yet ISIS still exists.
Despite alleged non-stop bombing from a dozen different countries.
Hmmmmmm........
>>29809953
IOF/IAF ?
don't you mean OIF and OEF?
>>29809946
Used more often?
Probably F-16 initially
As far as most effective, Apache helicopter and A-10 by far.
>>29809946
F-16s do most of the work. A-10 is an outdated meme plane. Not saying it's not cool, though.
Well, in recent history the vast majority of CAS has been conducted by bombers and F15/16/18 and drones
>>29809996
>As far as most effective, Apache helicopter and A-10 by far.
>>29809946
Why cant you be the A-10 every time?
>>29809970
That's...not what I asked though?
>>29810023
>>29810028
Is there a particular reason why the F-16 is used more? Ease of maintenance? Cheaper to operate?
>>29810156
>Cheap
>Agile
>Fast turn around
>ATA, ATG capability
>low maintenance cost
F-15 would follow up close 2nd, but its more costly to operate.
but if you wanted more/larger targets destroyed then you'd probably use the the F-15, if you're looking for quick strike capability the F-16 will do that well.
>>29809946
literally 100% CAS.
>>29810156
My point is that you're naive if you think they're actually bombing ISIS.
>>29809946
Over 80% of CAS done by the US in the past decade+ has been with aircraft other than the A-10. And if I remember correctly by tonnage dropped, the B-1B wins by far. That's not to say the A-10 is useless, just that USAF used almost it's entire inventory for CAS and that leaves the A-10 behind in the numbers game.
>>29810225
You're naive to think they aren't.
Every single Kurdish fighter is asking for more U.S led strikes in their area.
You're also naive in thinking aerial bombing has ever won a war on its own, we tried that in WWII and Vietnam.
>>29809996
>attack helicopters
>avg 6 min engagement time because "le aerodynamic as a brick, and fuel efficiency of a 56 cylinder engine"
>>29810267
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=Ok2kAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>29810156
>Is there a particular reason why the F-16 is used more? Ease of maintenance? Cheaper to operate?
We have more F-16s, so more are available in missions. Can fly high and fast enough to avoid all but the most advanced AA systems. Carries literally every munition the USAF has access to.
Basically, the only backdraw the F-16 has is its poor range, necessitating trading payload for external fuel.
>>29810156
The USAF has more F-16s than all other fighter/attack aircraft combined.
>>29810225
they love to hide while the drones are looking for them
>>29810156
>Is there a particular reason why the F-16 is used more?
People forget that Air-to-Ground was the entire reason why the F-16 was developed in the first place. The Air Force wanted a cheaper supplement to the F-15 that could handle the air-to-ground role, thus preserving the F-15's status as a pure air superiority fighter (well, for a time anyway)
Much is made of the F-16's dog-fighting ability but what the Air Force really cared about was the Viper's ability to drop bombs with unparalleled accuracy. Of course, this level of accuracy would not be considered impressive today, but it was considered a game-changer at the time.
>>29810446
>Viper
YOU FUCKING STUPID NIGGER MONKEY SLUTHOLE
IT IS THE FIGHTING FALCON
NOT THE FUCKING VIPER
>>29810431
>>29810431
>all those fuckin' aircraft
jesus fuck the cost of all that.
90% of the time they ain't doin' shit, no wonder the U.S is constantly at war to justify that amount.
>>29810519
There's even more than in that pic; I see no regular air lift squadrons, nor any of the ~250 C-17s.
>>29810507
Viper is what its pilots call it.
>>29810530
> ~meanwhile in nz entire airforce.
Amruica plz donate.
>>29810536
are you an F16 pilot?
No.
So why the fuck are you calling it the viper
>>29810541
I'm not the same anon, but I'll call it whatever the fuck I want
>>29810431
I kek'd at the upside down F-16.
>>29810253
B-52 has become pretty expensive.
>>29810557
>>29810431
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl23PfGOWoY&ab_channel=GungHoVids
Fun vid.
these aircraft are about as nice to look at as a good pair of tits.
From my personal experience it's been USN F/A-18's, USMC Harriers and USAF F-15E's
>>29810565
Not even including the maintenance cost of those, almost none of those parts will be original by now.
>>29810557
kek
it is the tunderbirds after all
>>29810530
It's 3 pages
>>29810805
>>29810809
no apache no cobra ?? wtf usa
>>29810888
Those belong to the army and the Marines
>>29810809
>>29810805
>>29810431
SCREAMING ACROSS THE SKY
IT'S LOTS AND LOTS OF JETS AND PLANES
>>29809946
Hi.
Since major combat operations have ended, the B-1 is the premier CAS aircraft and has shown itself to actually be cheaper to operate than the F-16 and A-10. This boils down to it's great range and ability to loiter combined with it's speed to take on CAS missions across long distances quickly and the fact that its bomb bay is such that FACs can call in what size JDAM they need. Of course, that last bit has lead to more collateral damage and civilian casualty incidents because you tell someone taking fire that they can get a 250, 500, 1000 or 2000lb bomb on target, they're naturally going to want the biggest one they can get as they're having a serious emotional event at the time.
>>29810431
>Thunderbirds
I really shouldn't have laughed at the upside down one.
>>29809946
Harrier, Apache and various nations Tornadoes have been doing the bulk of CAS in the last 10 years.
>>29811106
What's the thing under the wing closest to the camera?
The super tuc is the best, most cost effective CAS aircraft on the market today
When will the A-10 meme end?
>>29811165
Under the right wing of RAF Tornadoes there is a countermeasure pod, under the left wing there is a O/DECM jamming pod
>>29811021
Kek
>>29810916
Those belong to the Army and the Marines. Additionally, the Marines and Navy both own several hundred fighter aircraft not pictured here.
>>29809946
You go to the war with the weapons you have. So what's available gets used. F-16s and F/A-18s being so ubiquitous means they do most of the work. But the high availability rate of the A-10s means that they do relatively more work, i.e. on a per airframe basis.
>>29810294
>Basically, the only backdraw the F-16 has is its poor range, necessitating trading payload for external fuel.
Which is why the F-35 is a huge upgrade just in that mission.
>>29810441
Drones are really fucking hard to spot at altitude.
>>29810541
I feel like people unnecessarily throw the phrase 'sperg out' around alot on this Chinese knitting board but you, you need to stop sperging out.
>>29809970
>The US has been bombing North Vietnam for 8 years now
>Yet the NVA still exists
>Despite alleged non-stop bombing by waves of B-52 planes
Hurrrrrrrr....
>>29811179
Fuck Light COIN.
We Raiders of the Sky now.
>>29810431
How do squadron numbers work?
Does "100th example squadron" parse to "100th example squadron" [i.e. implicitly there are 100 example squadrons] or "100th squadron, task:example"?
Do Squadrons often radically change role [100th fighter squadron > 100th airborne air control squadron.] or do they generally remain quite reasonable [100th fighter squadron > 100th reconnaissance squadron]?
>>29811574
>How do squadron numbers work?
It's all completely arbitrary.
>>29811574
All military units use semi-random numbers so you can't derive total strength from the biggest numbered unit. There sure as hell aren't 551 Signal battalions, for instance.
http://www.signal.army.mil/index.php/15th-battalions/551st-signal-battalion
>>29810267
Wtf are you talking about
>>29811502
Is there any slight chance of them bein reintroduced as COIN aircrafts?
>>29811827
None. At the least they're going to use a new design with modern materials, sensors, and comms.
>>29809970
Bombing doesn't make countries unexist.
>>29812049
It can do...
>>29810540
Would New Zealand even take donated F-16s from the boneyard or is their military budget too small for even that?
>>29812761
Canada will take them
>>29812761
>selling spare parts stores
>>29812792
>Planes with even worse range and payload than the CF-18
>Unknown block levels mean major refurb and upgrades, likely more expensive than a new order
>>29811904
Its all turbo prop's and light aircraft with hardpoints.
They wanted a new skyraider in the 70's?, it was a turboprop but its range and payload was a lot less than the OG. It served until the 80's so the Skyraider had a pretty long and decorated career.
I wonder if you could modernize the Double Wasp in a sort of GM Small block > LT > Vortec > LS sort of way.
>>29813286
You still need appropriate power systems, to plan the electrical layout, and just as importantly now, data lines out to everything, especially to code weapons and, like the Super Taco, also have a targeting system and laser designator unit. Plus actually planning the design for easy maintenance like of the F-35 is big these days.
>>29814599
>>29814658
OK? That still doesn't change that you will always get far better results by designing from the ground up to meet the capability requirements.
>>29809946
Funnily enough, there was an article on this topic put out just a couple hours ago.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/05/02/bombing-isis-cmdr-shares-lessons-6-months-airstrikes/83617858/
In it is pic related. It says that B-1Bs flew a grand total of 5% of sorties, and still achieved these numbers.
>>29815309
That's a great chart. Does it come in human size or is it intended only for ants?
>>29815324
I assume it comes in a human size, as it's sourced to something else, but the article only has ant size, sorry.
>>29815309
Instead of sorties, I'd rather like to know the hours on station. A short legged fighter will rack up many sorties but not contribute as much to hours on station per sortie as e.g. a drone. Does Weapons released include guns? Does it just count the number of bombs or the weight of the payload dropped? On top of that I'd like BDA verified percentages for weapons employment success, collateral damage and friendly fire.
All in all the table doesn't give much info and may even lead to wrong conclusions.
>>29815811
The numbers as they exist already are a good enough indicator of what's going on, especially the latter figure. Guns frankly don't matter much. Loiter time is only important if you have the munitions to make use of it. And if you don't have the loiter, you aren't using the munitions. Hence, the weapons released figure is generally a good indicator, as we're talking about PGMs here.
As for hours on station, the article is mostly about the B-1B, on which the following is stated
>The planes can also fly over the fight for four to six hours between refuelings, providing “continuous, steady support for the ground forces that moved forward,” Joe said.
Further, the following quote.
>In parts of the region where terrain is relatively flat, commanders want the A-10 attack plane. But in mountainous regions, commanders want the high-endurance, unmanned MQ-9 Reapers for CAS, Goldfein said recently.
You're frankly asking for more information than is reasonably needed to get the gist of the situation. While it would be nice to have that information, we don't.
>>29815811
Forgot to add: the sorties alone don't say anything about the share of each type of plane deployed. Obviously if one type is deployed in greater numbers than another it's only natural if it gets to fly more sorties. But there can be noticable discrepancies due to differences in avalability rates. So the number of each type deployed is also crucial information.
>>29816240
The number of planes doesn't matter in the slightest. What matters is the number of times those planes are taking off to do something and the number of munitions hit. If planes are in theater, that doesn't mean they're doing anything. Instead, sorties are how you judge that. Just look at the F-16. While it did 22% of total sorties, it only delivered 16% of the munitions. In other words, it was fairly inefficient, just going off those numbers. This is probably because the F-16 doesn't have long legs, meaning it needs to carry more bags and less munitions.
>>29816101
>Guns frankly don't matter much.
A worthless statement without BDA data to back it up.
>Loiter time is only important if you have the munitions to make use of it.
Not if you're on recon.
>And if you don't have the loiter, you aren't using the munitions.
Simply silly. As if on demand sorties didn't exist.
>the weapons released figure is generally a good indicator
We simply don't know.
>As for hours on station, the article is mostly about the B-1B
Yes, not surprising. It has a, what, 55%+ fuel fraction? Still a long way short compared to drones. Especially when you consider the cost per flight hour
>You're frankly asking for more information than is reasonably needed to get the gist of the situation. While it would be nice to have that information, we don't.
Yes, but I'm also warning against reading too much into it. Wrong conclusions are easily drawn with insufficient data, bias, prejudices and false premises.
>>29810253
Mq-1 can't carry a GBU 12
>>29816101
And with the F-35's range and a maxed SDB payload they could orbit a lot longer than an A-10 could, and it doesn't even need to be nose-on to the target once cleared for release.
>>29816469
Yep, although the MQ-9 can. F-35 can also carry GBU-39s (with Block 3F)
>>29810294
the F-16 isn't cleared for the GBU-39 or the GBU-28.
>>29811621
>>29811656
to add on to this, as squadrons are stood up or stood down they gain new numbers, and keep numbers as roles change from operational to training or vice versa. a squadron can start off as a heavy pursuit squadron in WW2, go to a tactical fighter squadron in Korea/Nam, and end up being a fighter training squadron in the modern day.
>>29817286
Also can't drop a MOAB
>>29811165
Toe jamming pod
>>29810888
>>29810916
got those too
>>29818088
>>29818098
Also I guess the kiowas are gone now right?
;~;
>>29818112
>10 F-35s
FUCKING SHIT PLANE
>>29818539
Sorry we didn't give you a trigger warning. When did the F-35 rape you?
>>29818112
>HSC-84 'Redwolves'
Any reason why one of their Seahawks is missing the tail rotor?
>>29818098
I ran with the Gunrunners and Sabers for 4 years. Good batch of guys.
10/10, would avi again.
>>29810247
>total weapons released by aircraft
>bombers
>fighter aircraft
>on the same figure
hmmmmm
>>29821266
Considering that we're talking about 100% PGMs, the launching platform doesn't matter, just that they hit. That's what this is tracking.
>>29811451
That's not even the same thing and you know it
>>29821180
https://theaviationist.com/2012/06/04/resurrected-helo/
best guess.
>>29818112
>the two guys ejecting from the bug
what?
>>29817110
Can't wait for proof of this when pentagon reports are saying the A-10 can loiter for longer.
>>29809970
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34916209
If you compare the Syrian airstrike frequency to the intervention against Serbia you see that they minimize civilian casualties because the 'civilians' have brown skin
>>29824939
Post em.
>>29824977
>we totally killed 1,000 ISIS and zero civilians!!!
>trust us!!!
I guess they are considering anything brown and Muslim to be ISIS now.
>>29824939
Depends on how you're classifying "loitering" as well. Is it orbiting a tight loop directly overhead, or is it orbiting within effective, timely range of weapons systems? Because if it's the latter than with SDBs the F-35 has a 60+nmi umbrella coverage zone than can sight and engage faster, it can get the target zone inside its engagement range faster, and with its huge fuel tank (and remember, we still have mid-air refueling) it can stay up longer than the A-10.
>>29825692
I have seen a report where they compared loiter times but it was focusing on the F-35B which is kind of silly to compare that against the A-10.
>>29825705
Yeah, the only plane the B should be compared against is the Harrier, since it's that aircraft's role and mission it's taking over.
Ranger 13F here.
Most of my CAS needs were fulfilled by F/A-18. After that, F-16 was the most common followed by F-15 & B-1. I wish the A-10 were more prevalent and it would help if other nations were flying them. The A-10 wasn't my most common means of air support but they provided the highest quality, even better than the AV-8 by a wide margin.
>>29825129
In the dar al Islam the line between 'militant' and 'moderate' is about as blurry as the line between 'combatant' and 'civilian.'
>>29825848
You've gotta prove you are who you say you are.
>>29810247
Does "other" include helicopters or is that chart pretty much fixed-wing only?
>>29813286
>double wasp
You mean bringing back old high power pistons?
Never.
Too complex, too heavy, too maintenance heavy
>>29826044
I'd assume fixed wing only, source info for the graphs is listed as USAF and the article I found them from was also only talking about the Air Force.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-exactly-how-congress-wants-to-measure-the-a-10-wa-1773949233
Jesus Christ read these comments, it's painful.
>>29827108
Going through the requirements the F-35 would own at the requirements that actually matter, until you get to the parts where they are demanding something exactly like the A-10, which is retarded.
