A10 v F35
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
What plane do you think is the most advanced/should be used as the Air Force fighter.
>>30253008
well one of them isn't a fighter
>>30253027
>well one of them isn't a fighter
This, OP needs to do some research.
>>30253008
I'm pretty sure that an A-10 wouldn't even be able to get high enough to engage an F-35.
Don't they make a premium brand of this stuff?
i meant main service plane and automatically said fighter
fuck you CNN
>>30253554
>Main service plane
For what?
>>30253008
>A-10
>Fighter
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh
>>30253554
>i meant main service plane
A-10 is old and not nearly as good a /k/ want's to convince itself it is. F35 is overpriced but it will be a lot better in the same role.
>>30253851
>F35 is overpriced
Compared to what?
>>30253554
>i meant main service plane
What can the A-10 Intercept?
>>30253865
A missile with its hull.
Oh this thread again.
fuck off
>>30253008
I honestly don't understand why the A-10 never got exported to other countries.
>>30253903
Nobody wants a special snowflake plane that can do one job poorly.
>>30253859
Compared to a theoretical A-10 substitute manufactured with the idea of doing exactly that job but better, as opposed to doing EVERYTHING EVER BETTER THAN EVERYTHING EVER.
F-35 cannot do CAS as well as an A-10, but everyone knows this. You'd have to design an A-20 or something to do CAS better than the A-10 on a similar platform. There is nothing inherently wrong with this.
A-10 didn't even provide the majority of CAS in Afghan war, loiter times on bigger jets like the B-1 is a big factor, and yes, the B-1 did CAS.
There is also the discussion of aging A-10s, and the cost it will take to maintain the A-10s into the future. There is the point of what happened if we got into a shooting war, were AA/SAMs were a real threat, the A-10 is tough but not invincible.
A F-35 30,000 feet in the air is a lot safer than a slow A-10 6000 feet up. Or even ISIS, they have MANPADs.
>>30253903
Why sell it when you can not sell it, and then sell us using it?
>>30253929
But then the air force has to maintain 2 supply chains instead of 1.
>>30253930
>F-35 cannot do CAS as well as an A-10, but everyone knows this
>A F-35 30,000 feet in the air is a lot safer than a slow A-10 6000 feet up
Since when did "returning from a mission unscathed" stop being one of the main goals in CAS in USAF?
>>30253927
The Russians successfully sold Frogfoots to many countries. Same type of plane.
>>30253979
One could argue that Frogfoots are just better.
>inb4 REEEEEEEE
One CANNOT argue that they are a lot easier to use for an air force with a meh ground maintenance and poor pilots, aka most of the importers.
>>30253977
Keeping the the jet from getting shot down is probably a pretty big goal.
There was a number of A-10s shot down in Gulf War, it would only be worse today in another shooting war.
>>30254006
Oh and they are cheaper.
>>30254029
Which only proves that A-10's time has passed, and F35 will do it's job significantly better.
>>30254006
You're throwing some dangerous opinions out there, Vladimir.
>>30254052
Well to be fair, it was the A-10a version. I think the A-10c entered service in 2007. But I don't know if it upgraded its survivability? I think the C version was mainly avionics and shit.
>>30254006
>One could argue that Frogfoots are just better.
>>30254080
The A-10C version has greatly improved communication systems, plus a sniper pod, and the ability to use a variety of "smart" weapons. The A-10A was limited to using "dumb" bombs and shooting its gun. The tragic irony of the A-10C is that because it is able to use smart bombs, it really ever actually uses its gun anymore.
>>30254061
>>30254132
I know, but proving them wrong will require something more than just
>m-muh BRRRRRRRRRRRRT
>>30254164
If the Air Force is already using them to fly high and drop bombs from a distance, why do you need a dedicated CAS platform to do that when the F-15e, F-16, F/A-18, and eventually F-35 already do?
>>30254164
That's not a tragedy, the gun is a trap. People love it, but it has fewer stowed kills than an equivalent mass of missiles, is overall weaker, and demands an attack profile much riskier than missiles.
>>30254165
It's well known that A-10 fags cannot think rationally, and will resort to >muh brrt at the sight of a fact based criticism to the A-10
>>30254191
they don't. Which is why they're getting rid of them.
>>30254198
b-but my brrt..
Can the GAU-8 penetrate a T-90? I doubt it.
>>30254207
I know, that was more of an argument pointed to anyone pro A-10
>>30254216
It has a hard time penetrating a T62...
>>30254216
It wouldn't even penetrate a lot of the older Cold War vintage tanks. The gun was never the primary anti-tank weapon, the A-10 was a rocket/cluster bomb truck as designed and then became a maverick truck with doctrinal advancement.
It's interesting to see how the general opinion has turned against the A-10..
A year or two ago if you defended the F-35 you'd get a lot of flak.
>>30254265
A-10 cult worship is slowly starting to collide with reality.
>>30254265
I don't think anyone would call the F35 perfectly optimal. It is, however, less shit than every other option on the market, and that's good enough.
>>30254265
Lockheed shilling has grown over the years like polshit
The shitty thing about the f35 is it means a simplified air fleet, fewer cool planes being made is lame as fuck
>>30254164
>The A-10A was limited to using "dumb" bombs
I'm going to make a retraction here. The A-10A did have the Maverick missiles, which was arguably the platform's saving grace and best weapon overall.
>>30253008
Nigga, warthog don't go fast. Warthog wouldn't be able to intercept anything and is designed for troop support and tank removal.
>Navy Warthog has the arresting hook facing the other way round
>>30254330
F-35 is bretty cool tho
>>30254258
And in fact it was only via the Maverick's targeting camera the A-10 in the Gulf could fly at night and have precision engagement.
>>30254330
>Lockheed shilling has grown over the years like polshit
>General opinion shifting against the haters as reality becomes more obvious is shilling
Stay mad.
>>30254348
F35-like, AND a twin engine naval fighter, AND a CAS platform would be more than 3x as much cool.
F35 looks like a babby F22 (probably why USAF brass changed JSF rules to totally eliminate the X32's shot)
>>30254330
Same argument made about tanks post ww1.
Once technology matured, the MBT resolved out of a morass of shitty light/medium/heavy/assault/etc tanks.
Thus too for planes, although they have a slightly broader array of niches, eg strike fighter vs subsonic-persistent-stealth vs everything else.
>>30254354
It will never cease to amuse/annoy me about how Sprey and his ilk decried precision weapons like the Maverick and then held up the A-10 as a triumph of cheap, rugged simplicity in the Gulf War when most of its success came from the Maverick.
>>30254381
I know, and fucking space mechs equipped with rail guns and swords would be cool too. But too bad we live in reality.
Summer is here when people start asking something that a 7th grader would ask.
>>30254384
>Same argument made about tanks post ww1.
To that I'd say that the ATGM carrier is the evolution of tank destroyer, and there have been a decent variety of tanks after WW2.
There is a reason the F-22 in Syria. SAMs/MANPADs are a real real threat and it's something the A-10 cannot effectively counter.
>>30254435
The F-22 was used in Syria*
>>30254398
Reality is the F35 won't be needed as designed ever.
Modern airfoces just need AMRAAM and JDAM trucks for destroying an obsolete air force and then COIN.
>>30254435
Well, that and it was there to kill Russian/Assad aircraft if they got out of hand.
>>30254435
Reason is the F117 is too old, and they wanted to use the things for something before they rust
>>30254456
Which is what the F-35 does already.
But you don't forgo procuring or designing something because you just may not ever need it.
>>30254376
I personally love to go to other websites and defend the F-35 just to watch normies get mad.
>tfw I got banned from the National Interest
What am I gonna do now. I don't get it I wasn't even rude to anybody.
>>30254527
>mfw looking at YouTube comments on an F-35 video
I can't fucking do this
>>30254381
>(probably why USAF brass changed JSF rules to totally eliminate the X32's shot
Or because the X-32 wasn't actually a finished design, not the plane described in the design doc, couldn't be demonstrated as both STOVL and CTOL in one prototype, had no room in the design for munitions, had serious hot exhaust feedback issues in STOVL, couldn't do STOVL without stripping out half the equipment weight...
Lockheed Shills in full force today I see
>>30254609
Nice argument, Spreyfag.
>>30254655
When was the fucking F-35 supposed to enter service for the Air Force? Like 6 years ago?
>>30254538
No seriously, what do I do.
That shit was like crack for me.
I've emailed them several times asking why I was banned and they haven't replied.
>>30254708
What did you even do senpai
>>30254707
>Still repeating this bullshit estimate from before the F-35's design was finalized
>>30254795
Probably went against the site's opinion.
>>30253008
Different missions. The A-10 can't do air-to-air for shit (it wasn't designed for it).
The F-35 can do the A-10's job (nor any other job usually assigned to a war-fighting jet) because it is shitball of compromises and should be aborted.
>>30254938
>(nor any other job usually assigned to a war-fighting jet) because it is shitball of compromises
Mind elaborating?
>>30254381
The USAF didn't change anything; the Boeing team embarrassed themselves when it came to the USMC STOVL aspect and then had their design fail further when the US Navy lowered their carrier approach speed requirement.
>>30254938
Please provide arguments for why the F-35 cannot do any jobs.
>>30255011
because the mexicans took them
>>30254938
>The F-35 can do the A-10's job
Freudian slip anon?
>>30254330
Don't worry, you could look forward to the inevitable unmanned planes replacing stuff like the F-22 and F-35, probably in your lifetime or mine. Both of them are the last gasps of extremely high tech manned fighters / multirole before they end up getting tossed in a ditch on the side of the road.
>>30254938
>The F-35 can do the A-10's job
It sure can, buddy. Hauls more munitions at less risk, better targeting precision, and even has a more accurate gun.
>>30253851
>A-10 is old and not nearly as good a /k/ want's to convince itself it is
can a better plane be designed for the GAU 8?
>>30255539
>can a better plane be designed for the GAU 8
A much better plane can be designed just by designing it for ANYTHING that is not GAU 8.
>inb4 brrrt wank
![Jo7YZyj[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SMpcQKR.jpg "Jo7YZyj[1].jpg")
>>30255539
>>30255268
>The F-35 can't do the A-10's job
>It sure can, buddy. Hauls more munitions at less risk, better targeting precision, and even has a more accurate gun.
It's not nearly as acrobatic, which is essential in tank killing. There is no way the F-35 can do the job as well. Nor can it do the job the navy and the Marines need. Trying to cram all the requirements into one air frame is wishful thinking and the F-35 acquirers will be a case study for future procurements on what not to do.
>>30255253
No, just a typo. I meant "can't".
>>30255011
Without some leap in technology (which the F-35 does not have). One airframe cannot do it all, despite what the manufacturers say. If you believe it can, then you are naive, young and inexperienced. So, fuck you.
>>30255852
You're not even providing arguments.
Why can it not do the job it needs to for the Marines?
It does STOVL, it's better than the Hornets the Marines are still using, which are old as fuck. Carries more bombs, and is safer.
>>30255905
You aren't providing arguments though. Its gun is better than the A-10s, it carries more bombs then the A-10, it's faster and more manuverable than the A-10. The A-10 is basically a JDAM/Maverick platform, which the F-35 does better, and much safer.
>>30255852
>It's not nearly as acrobatic
>A-10
>acrobatic
AAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
>>30255852
>acrobatic
>>30255990
Is this how they actually start off training
>>30253008
>What plane do you think is the most advanced/should be used as the Air Force fighter.
Troll.
The A-10 isn't a fighter. It's an attack aircraft (hence the "A" in the name).
>>30255852
Can you actually say why? All you've got is hurrrr multirole is bad because I said so, nothin personnel kid
This thread is full of F-35 fanboys.
The A-10 is a can -opener (enemy tanks being the "cans" here for you slow types). It was well designed for its task, and has a proven history.
The F-35 is like an Obama promise. It gives the weak-minded the reassurance that it'll all be OK, but subtlety fucks the tax-paying public. You fan-boys are innocent idiots. I forgive you for your ignorance.
>>30255879
So, Freudian slip.
>>30256449
Nice vague buzzwords, but you still haven't made any actual arguments. You're probably afraid you're going to get BTFO once you actually start trying.
>>30256411
kid? kek.
Experience, and lots of it Multi-role has never worked and the F-35 is no game-changer. It's a fucking compromise that'll kill a lot of Americans/
>>30255852
>acrobatic, which is essential in tank killing.
https://youtu.be/Z_dZw1iBWL0
>>30256449
>This thread is full of F-35 fanboys.
/end thread/
>>30256449
Kill yourself. A-10 cannot penetrate a T-90, let alone a T-72.
You know what can though? A JDAM dropped from an F-35 30,000 feet in the air it never knew was there.
>>30255852
>It's not nearly as acrobatic, which is essential in tank killing.
>Dropping a munition from 30,000ft requires acrobatics
>implying the A-10 is acrobatic at all compared to a 9G high-AoA fighter
>>30256476
F-16 didn't work? F-15e didn't work? F/A-18 didn't work?
the fuck are you talking about man
>>30256476
>Multi-role has never worked
What is;
F-16, F-18, F-4, Rafale, Mirage, Harrier, Mig-29, Tornado, Typhoons, even the F-22 has dropped more ground ordinance in actual combat.
Face it, the age of the single use combat aircraft is over.
>>30256211
>The A-10 isn't a fighter. It's an attack aircraft (hence the "A" in the name).
A actually stands for Tactical Bomber, while B is Strategic Bomber.
>>30255852
But the A-10 is not acrobatic AT ALL.
Is this just one guy fanboying the A-10? Because all these A-10 posts are devoid of sound arguments.
>>30256522
I thought the F-22 had no ground capabilities? Does it even have a ground targeting pod?
>>30255852
>A-10
>Agile
I bet you think it's faster too huh, or you can only do CAS by flying low and slow.
>>30256560
>yfw the fucking B-1b did more cas in Afghanistan than the A-10
>>30256552
The APG-77v1 upgrade added synthetic aperture ground mapping and target acquisition capabilities, but if it can't get a target that way then it requires external coordinate feed or buddy lasing.
>>30256552
It does, it wasn't CAS and it used a JDAM, the F-22 is just poorly equipped for anything other than light strike roles. They used it to hit targets deep inside Syria back when the air campaign kicked off and they were worried Assad might try to shoot.
>>30256607
The goatse fuel port always gives me a chuckle.
>>30256552
It can drop a few bombs and has, but isn't optimized for it at all and has a very limited selection to choose from. Much like the F-15A.
>>30255852
The F-35's way more acrobatic; it has a far higher thrust to weight, similar wing loading and a far higher max angle of attack
>>30255852
>acrobatic
Look, it's a cool gif, but its not representative of reality at all.
>>30256570
This is an overlooked fact. The combination of the A-10's slow speed in getting to a IP was its undoing. Its loiter time is less then the B-1's too, which is inconvenient to controllers and guy on the ground.
It sucks, and the A-10 definitely added luster to the Airforce, but it is wholly outclassed by a fucking nuclear bomber drawn up in the 60's that has 21st century battlefield surveillance and is reliable enough to have one in the air over AF at all times.
>>30256771
Loiter time > brrt
>>30256692
>>30255852
>>30256819
Those turns are fucking pretty.
>>30256805
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/12/30/the-under-appreciated-workhorse-of-americas-air-wars-the-b-1-bomber/
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets/Display/tabid/224/Article/104500/b-1b-lancer.aspx
Not going to wait for your sources, because the truth is obvious
>>30253008
As someone who has worked on both, A10 all the way.
>>30256852
wut
I was agreeing with you senpai
I love the bone
>>30255996
id hope so, i own one of those joysticks, theyre pretty sweet
>>30256852
And think of what the F-35 brings: auto-mapping friendly locations based on BFT/NETT Warrior/Rifleman Radio SA data, which should allow for easy mapping of the danger ranges of munitions and easier coordination with ground controllers on the target. Especially with systems like the eLRAS3 that can both generate 10 digit target grids and pass imagery into a network.
>>30255996
Proper simulators are expensive and therefore hard to get any time on; basic ones like this are used a fair bit.
>>30256861
And your uncle works at Nintendo.
>>30256861
If you're just a maintainer, your position really has no weight at all.
>>30256906
Nigga shut your mouth, don't tell everything you now.
>>30254435
Then why has the A-10 been flying sorties there?
>>30256995
Because the MANPADS aren't everywhere, especially the really good ones. But if they suddenly appear, A-10s are at the most risk.
>>30256995
Not the guy you are responding to but C-130 have also been doing sorties in Syria. Saying that is the same as saying living in a ghetto makes you ghetto.
>>30256995
>F-22s run missions deep within Syria to attack highly sensitive targets when there was still a chance that air defense would try to light them up.
>Hurr well some A-10s blew up some trucks right across the border it's the same thing right.
How much does Lockheed pay you faggots?
The F-35 is a fucking late, overpriced lemon.
>>30254348
This .webm titled 'F-35 EODAS' is actually an F-16C.
*DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS*
This OP is full of nothing but opinions and no facts.
>>30257220
How much does Boeing pay you faggot?
>>30257221
That's an F-16C viewed through the EODAS of an F-35.
>>30257221
This is the stupidest thing I've seen all day, and we've had to deal with a surge of poltards and gun grabbers.
>>30254348
>>30257475
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1NrFZddihQ
>>30257220
A rich, corrupt Lockheed Martin project manager was giving a conference presentation on the F-35, a known lemon.
"Before this presentation begins, you must get on your knees and praise STOVL and accept that no price is too high or delays too long for the F-35!"
At this moment, a genius, pro-CAS Air Force colonel and aerospace engineer who flew over 22 non-combat missions, designed multiple military aircraft and understood the necessity of high maneuverability and flying low and slow enough to hang around ground troops stood up and spoke.
"How many different kinds of missions should a fighter aircraft be able to perform, shill?"
The LockMart shill smirked quite bureaucratically and smugly replied "How ever many each separate branch of the military needs, you stupid luddite."
"Wrong. As soon as you go to design a multi-mission airplane you're sunk."
The project manager was visibly shaken, and dropped his powerpoint laser pointer and multiple bags of pork barrel kickback money. He stormed out of the room crying those shill crocodile tears. The same tears F-35 fanboys cry for the whole of the military industrial complex (who today live in such luxury that most own unsolicited R&D programs). He wished so much that he had a gun to shoot himself, but the F-35's cannon would not function until 2019!
The other attendees applauded and all petitioned to keep the A-10 indefinitely that day and accepted the MiG-21 and F-5 as the best fighters to have ever been created. An eagle named “Lightweight Fighter” flew into the room and perched atop the projector and shed a tear on the screen. The mantra "Stealth is a scam!" was recited several times, and WWII radar operators showed up themselves and set up long wavelength radars to guard american skies for all time.
The shill lost his position at LockMart and was fired the next day. He died of a cholesterol-fueled heart attack and was tossed into the boneyard for all eternity.
>>30257676
Fuck em both guise, f-35 is doomed and a-10 it dying.
just send in procurement orders for 4000 or so of pic related
>This thread should have been aborted
>>30257767
Excellent Steph, please post more
>>30257892
>>30257886
Good one!
>>30257967
>tfw no Joost
Speaking of Stephanie.
Is it possible to shoot down a plane with a sniper rifle
>>30258066
If you shoot it enough or in the right place.
>>30258066
Sure. You could, hypothetically speaking, take out a plane with a well placed rock or bird. That doesn't make it likely.
>>30253930
>F-35 can't do CAS as well as an A-10. No, it can do it better. The gun doesn't even come into it.
>>30254538
Got into a few argument on A-10 videos, pretty much pointing out that the gun isn't used and that flying about at 400 knots below cloud level is borderline suicide in anything but the most permissive airspace.
>>30257220
Shill should be a bannablw word (along with cuck etc), you fucks don't use it properly.
There's absolutely no reason for Lockheed to 'shill', the F-35 is going into production, it's final, they're gon a get paid for, strangely enough the opinions of people on anonymous image boards never factored into that.
>>30258891
Maybe they should autoreplace it like they did to get rid of that desu baka senpai garbage.
>advanced
Great loaded question there lightning fag.
>>30260040
Get bent, Boeingshill.
>>30258755
Even better to realize it only cruises at about 250 knots and no one still likes it/ it's only alive because of congressional memery.
>>30260327
Normalfags also love it.
OK, first off these two planes have vastly different roles. The A-10 is a ground support platform, it is designed to attack targets on the ground. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter, designed to do multiple mission types well but is a more generalist type of aircraft. It can do the GS role but isn't going to do as well as one specialized for that role. The A-10 would die in the Air Superiority role, it's a ground support aircraft not a fighter jet. The F-35 is the most advance plane to date in our inventory, even more advanced then the F-22. Even saying that, the F-22 would beat it in a dog fight. Why? because the F-22 is a specialized Air Superiority aircraft and not a generalist aircraft. The main reason the A-10 is being retired is it's age, it's no longer as safe as it used to be and most of it's role has been taken over by UAVs and the AC-130 gunships. The F-35 is the replacement for the F-16, F-15, & F-18.
Sorry, the f-35 is also a replacement for the Harrier .
>>30260943
>>30260965
Work that out all for yourself, detective namefag?
you guys that say f35 sucks are all aerospace engineers, air force generals and current air force fighter pilots right?
just because you saw a few utube videos saying the f35 sucks, made by the CIA to spread misinformation, doesn't mean its right.
>>30261085
F35 is alright, but by that logic we can't criticize anything that entered service ever.
>>30261085
>am I an authority?
Nah, but I do love to share.
http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/stuck-on-denial-part-i-the-u-s-air-force-and-stealth/
>>30261200
tl;dr?
I'm not reading that shit.
>>30261200
War on the rocks? Really?
Here, try a better source: http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/search/label/F-35
>>30261236
tl;dr a moronic blog that even references the F-15E having more payload than the F-22 as an example of how stealth reduces performance.
Can't make this shit up.
>>30261267
B-but they have different missions
Once I saw the F-117, I just closed the tab.
>>30261267
Reminds me of the warisboring site
That place is also shit
>>30261246
>>30261267
Check out who wrote the article.
>>30261200
Or you could take the word of someone who's actually flown an F-35, but that would be too logical right?
http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/>>30261200
>>30261343
Maybe you could catch some more information from the air force higher ups via cited articles you never bothered to read.
>>30261362
>Maybe you could catch some more information from the air force higher ups
Not that anon, but the "higher ups" are the pro-F35 people.
Unlike the F-15E EWO, showing a bias to his planefu like I see from so many F-18 pilots.
>>30261329
Sprey?
I'm on mobile and it wont load for some reason
>>30261373
Because air force policy has always been on point in regards to the planes we need, right?
http://warontherocks.com/2016/05/out-of-time-do-not-revive-the-f-22/
>>30261402
A wild weasel pilot who flew both F-4 and F-15E.
Stealth is a combat proven technology.
>>30261412
Already one delusional blogpost, not going to read another, turbonerd
>>30256570
>the fucking B-1b did more cas in Afghanistan than the A-10
What the fuck?
How?
>>30261484
Loiter time and huge payload. Is it really that hard to wrap your tiny brain around?
>>30261462
But where is the cutoff point in performance exchange, especially in relation to cost? Stealth should not be our biggest technical endeavor.
>>30253008
The A-10 is like a F-14, outdated in most of today's century warfare except when blasting poorly trained sandniggers. The A-10 is memorable but it is outdated. took me time to realize it. Kinda like a old 1970 Cadillac.
>>30260943
The A-10 does nothing the F-35 can't do better, all while being way too expensive for COINops.
>>30261502
But the F-35 isn't really sacrificing any performance in favor of stealth. It can be equipped with external payloads, if the mission calls for it.
>>30261484
The B-1B flies far fewer trips than the A-10.
But every time the B-1B gets sent out it drops a huge amount of ordinance.
So even though the B-1B does fewer sorties, it ends up dropping the most bombs regardless.
>>30256503
you know what else can carry Jdams?
you know what else is can carry to get the other 15 jobs done before it need to rearm?
>>30261612
A B-1b?
>>30261612
The F-35, F-16 (to an extent), F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, F/A-XX, B-1B..
The list is long.
>>30261612
>F-35 can carry more
>Doesn't need a targeting pod
> can get over target far faster
> can haul 24 SDB-Is
>mfw the next generation will literally be having the same fucking shitposting arguments about new planes on some future chinese cartoon website
History always repeats itself
>The A-10 will be retired in your lifetime
>You will be able to witness the A-10 cultists tears
>>30254825
A lot of normie websites can't be bothered to actually moderate their boards so they simply use a system where you get auto-banned if enough people flag your posts.
>>30261703
>>30261703
This has occurred to me as well. We're going to keep having this discussion all the way until 2024 when the last A-10 squadron is retired and then we'll probably be having it long after that as well.
>>30261246
>http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/search/label/F-35
Fuck. It's happening. Hanging on to the A-10 has started fucking things up and making more work for everyone else, as was predicted.
>>30262053
>yfw Congress signs it into law that A-10s have to be maintained to be ready to be reactivated at a moment's notice
>yfw A-10fags constantly whine that it should be brought back with railguns replacing the GAU-8
>>30253288
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QGwsRazhvA
Get rekt. a-10 kills f-16 in dogfight. f-16 is more maneuverable than f-35. a-10 >f-35 in dogfight
>>30264330
I bet that F-16 pilot got so much shit from the other F-16 pilots.
>Remember that time you got shot down, by an A-10?
>Come on that was years ago.....
>>30253008
A-10 isn't a fighter, so F-35.
>>30255996
nope, this is how US air force train their "pilots" after the latest budget cuts. You want to see the CS:GO and ARMAS mod that the army use to train them on how to fight with guns after their bullet budgets been cut in half?
>>30264829
>>30264330
Any plane can shoot down another plane if the conditions are right. Considering this is a training exercise we're seeing I wouldn't be surprised if the F-16 was operating under strict RoE or the pilot was completely green. No actual F-16 veteran would willingly get into a close range turning fight with an A-10.
>>30264953
stop being a truth denier
>>30264995
Under that logic the B-52 is a better fighter than a MiG-21 because it managed to shoot down two with its tailguns.
>>30264953
>No actual F-16 veteran would willingly get into a close range turning fight with an A-10.
Because those A-10s are feared for their dogfighting prowess.
>>30265035
Mainly because the A-10 has better low speed performance than the F-16, so the F-16 is just artificially hobbling itself if it tries to dance with one. Ideally an F-16 would leverage its faster speed and higher altitude ceiling to get the drop on the A-10.
>>30265035
The A-10 does have a super tight turn radius compared to most fighter jets. The A-10 would likely win a slow-speed turning fight against many modern fighter jets.
However, the A-10's slow rate of climb and low service ceiling would prevent it from getting close enough to engage in most cases.
>>30265035
By that logic we should be operating P-51s or Spitfires for air superiority.
