>Wake up
>Realize the A-10 still exists
WHY
>>29842429
ABU HAJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR
>>29842429
>Browsing /k/
>realize Australia is waking up
WHY?
>>29842429
I like Sugar and well I like tea
BUT I DONT LIKE NIGGERS NO SIR-E
>>29842429
At least the US Army is set to replace them with HK417s
*inhale*
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
>>29842429
>>29842437
>>29842429
Purely out of spite for you.
>>29842429
>>29842429
Because the Air Force hates running CAS missions and will always try to shirk the job off onto Navy Drones even though the USAF has perfectly fine drones of their own. But they're drones run by the USAF so they're ten times gayer than the Navy Drones. That's saying something. That's impressive. You have any idea how hard it is to be gayer than the Navy? Let alone by an order of magnitude? You have to work at it. That's not a gift at birth, there's no natural aptitude for that sort of thing. We're talking gay-training. Serious gay montages that cover massive expanses of life. You start gaying up from the second you wake up and keep gaying all day to condition your body for maximum gayness. It's real work and is emblematic of serious discipline, hard work, and commitment to duty. Gay duty. Gay drone duty.
Anyway, Close Air Support missions are the most manly of all possible missions and give everyone involved massive, pants-soiling, freedom-erections. These missions involve putting the aircraft into close, dangerous, low-flying attack patterns or loitering patterns in direct close support of ground forces against other ground forces, making the craft vulnerable to any litany of enemy ground attack. The A-10 is really fucking good at these types of missions because it is basically a rocket-powered brick with purely decorative wings that can take a dozen fucking rockets and a thousand fucking bullets before it even considers -not- being a functional flying machine. And even if some maniac manages to bring one of these cement-blocks-pretending-to-be-a-plane down to the ground, the technology behind them is approximately bronze-age and even the most boot fucking Navy AT mechanic can get an A-10 flying again with sufficient bubble-gum and duct-tape.
FunFact: No new A-10's have been built for the past half-century. Because they're so hardy and repairable, the company that made the A-10 went out of business shortly after production.
They
Don't
Fucking
Die
>>29843439
More like because they were obsolete and overpriced when they were new
And they've been steadily stripping them for parts, soon enough all will be gone
>>29843439
Continued:
So whenever some hand-rubbing airfoil peddler tries to shill some new piece of hardware to the USAF to replace the A-"Tank-That-Forgot-Tanks-Are-Not-Supposed-To-Fly"-10, EVENTUALLY someone with both a brain AND some balls asks "Yes, but can it do CAS as good as the A-10 can?" and the air-shill will say 'yes! of course it can! And it's completely invisible to out-dated cheap radar that nobody uses, made of inexpensive paper-mache, has defensive countermeasures that work almost half the time, and has radio equipment so advanced you can sometimes use it to talk to someone other than your immediate commander and unit! (wow!)' and Brainy-McBallsHaver Martha McSally will say "oh! so it doesn't have restricted night capability, it can pass 9 lines via data, it has extensive time-on-station/loiter time capability, it carries more bullets on it per-mission than an under-equipped grunt, and it can survive several direct hits from AA guns or missiles?'
Ten years and $400 billion later, we're still using the A-10 and a new cycle of airfoil shillers step up to the plate with their meager offerings.
Not that I don't sympathize with Lockheed and Raytheon. The last guys who made a satisfactory attack aircraft for the USAF went out of business because they made it so good. What the fuck are you supposed to replace that shit with? In this day and age of cushy military-industrial contracts, why would you make something that didn't require billion-dollar replacements every six nanoseconds?
My point is I want to fuck a GAU-8....(again)
>>29842429
anon pls
>>29843694
there is a rule in business don'r make your shit too good, other wise no repeat customers.
>>29843903
>A-10
>Good
>Original versions required six switches to go from bombs to missiles
>Got ground up any time facing any halfway competent AAA
>Needed to use Maverick IR cams to see in the dark in the Gulf War
>Massive waste of money that gets shoehorned into all kinds of missions it's subpar at because we can't just leave it on the ground
>Stupid expensive for a COIN aircraft
>>29842450
Its children, not sugar.
>>29845386
In Texas the saying is sugar because of sweet tea.
You sound like a pedo.
>>29845401
Liking children is being a pedo? I guess every mom and dad in the world are pedos now.
>>29845110
All of your operative words are past tense.
>t. Senator with buddies at aviation defense contractors
>>29845408
The last two are still perfectly valid, and I guarantee that if we tried sending A-10s into airspace that actually has defenses, they'd get chewed up again.
>>29843694
>Tanks-Are-Not-Supposed-To-Fly
They were in USSR
>>29842429
>wake up
>realize weapons board is full of underage noguns that watch anime
>why live?
