If the A-10 is so great, then why does only 1 country use it?
>>28372799
Absolutely flawless logic.
OOOOOOH!
>>28372799
because its so good, only the greatest country on earth can have it
Because the USA is the biggest hipster of the weapons world, using a dirt cheap old model aircraft for ground attack would be too mainstream.
Case in point, the M60. Rather than adopt the M240 (FN MAG-58) back in 1958 when it was invented, they had to have their own special snowflake GPMG.
If nukes are great, then why do only a couple countries have them?
>>28372799
> the face of the one on the left.....
I'd still hit it, as long as she's over 18.
>>28372799
That isn't even based on which weapon system is best.
The primary concern is pork. Can we funnel money into our pockets with this plane?
Well, cheap planes aren't very good for funneling money into politicos pockets.
Expensive planes are better. Especially if they're a little less effective, so you lose a few. That's worth millions in profit, every one you lose.
We didn't lose too many A-10's.
>>28375031
the one on the right, yes.
the one on the left (psycho crazy face), oh shit run for your life
>>28379178
The one on the right would be a "good girl" and only let you near her vagina after a long and protracted courtship. And even then, it would be missionary with the lights off every other week.
The one on the left would be a total cockwhore from day one.
>>28375031
>I'd still hit it, as long as she's over 18
>as long as she's over 18
>>28372799
because its not
>>28372879
We were still using the M60 in helicopters as off 2005. They were generally preferred over the m240h.
>>28380328
>They were generally preferred over the m240h.
Bull fucking shit. I can tell you never had to dissemble a M60 barrel.
Also all helicopter doorguns use M240d or b models if not using an M134.
>>28372799
Because YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH, that's why.
>>28372799
Technically speaking the kpops do operate them, however under US command.
>>28372799
Holy shit ive legit been there
Please tell me thats OC
>>28380328
>They were generally preferred over the m240h.
The M60 has always been beloved by those who enjoy burning their hands.
>>28380355
You're wrong, helicopters use M240Hs.
>Sauce: I'm a blackhawk crewchief and have shot an M240H out of the window.
>>28380399
>>28380355
Also, you don't barrel change generally in the air.
>>28372799
the usual reason for "Sole Operator: USA"
$$$$
>>28372799
It really isn't
>>28380328
You sir are thinking of the golf model when it was first given to the military.
I know this because that fucking thing has such a shit reputation among people who participated in the initial issue that it has spread to all 240 models since.
>>28372799
Because the US AF is too set on the F35 and ignoring proven counter insurgency strategy
pic unrelated
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-cant-truly-replace-the-10-14060
>>28381181
>costs less to repair
irrelevant if you don't get hit because you are flying at higher altitude
>muh cannnon
Is a meme at this point, especially with the SDB and SDB II. There is nothing that the GAU-8 can deal with that the GAU-12 can't also deal with, anyway
>psychology
So the author is an idiot, like the people from Desert Storm that thought K-kills from Mavericks against Iraqi tanks were inferior to a "maybe" from the gun
>low altitude
Not necessary with high resolution targeting pods, let's also not forget that the A-10 is not operating at Cessna speeds and the ground turns into a blur at normal A-10 speeds
>ground support and observation planes
Yes, things that are slower than the A-10 like helicopters for example or meme Tucanos
There is nothing in that citation which makes the F-35 or similar high performance aircraft actively bad, except perhaps their expense which is an argument about efficiency rather than warfighting effectiveness
>As many of America’s future conflicts will likely be related to fighting non-state actors and insurgency forces like those of ISIS"
Which is by no means a given, and the author makes a baseless assertion by saying "likely" without any sort of qualifying statement or explanation for how he came to this assessment
>The A-10 is much ... more resilient
Which would be correct if the only way to conduct CAS was low and relatively slow, but it isn't
>more doctrinally suitable for counterinsurgency
The author present no truly compelling reason to retain an aging fleet of A-10s
>>28381181
>F-35 can carry more and broader variety of munitions for air to ground significantly faster
>Designed from the ground up for network integrated strike and CAS
>AH-1/AH-64 provide superior gun air support from stabilized platform
>Implying a plane significantly more likely to get hit in normal ops is cheaper long-term
The A-10 has done great, but it's outdated, the gun is mostly useless for anti-tank these days, and it's mainly using JDAM/Hellfire anyways. The Marines can scramble a B from forward helo bases faster than an A-10 could get onsite, and with a pair of tanks A/C 35s can outleg it 4-6 times before needing refuel. And that gets back into the fact the A-10 can't survive modern IADS systems at its strike/CAS mission profile.
>>28381181
hows this supposed to work... snakes are cold blooded. they dont make heat to contain....
>>28375031
>>28379178
Both underage and total psychopaths
