Reinstated
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
>As predicted by Air Combat Command commander Gen. Hawk Carlisle in November, the Air Force is indefinitely freezing all plans to retire the A-10 Warthog, a warplane many officials, airmen and congressional members have rallied behind since the announcement of its withdrawal from the battlefield. Service officials next month will lay out their new request when the Pentagon submits its fiscal 2017 budget request to Congress, DefenseOne reports. The Air Force in a statement told Air Force Times Wednesday they could not discuss the budget request until it is presented to Congress.
>“It appears the administration is finally coming to its senses and recognizing the importance of A-10s to our troops’ lives and national security," Rep. Martha McSally, R-Ariz., said in a statement Wednesday in response to the news reports. McSally is a retired colonel who served 26 years in the Air Force and was the first female pilot to fly in combat. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., another A-10 advocate, echoed McSally's sentiments. "With growing global chaos and turmoil on the rise, we simply cannot afford to prematurely retire the best close air support weapon in our arsenal without fielding a proper replacement," he said in a statement.
>While the decision ultimately lies with Pentagon leadership, Carlisle said that he believes the retirement of the A-10 could be delayed by a few years to make sure the Air Force has the number of planes it needs — especially since top brass is re-evaluating the number of F-35’s (planes intended to replace the A-10) that the U.S. will purchase. “If I have them, I’m going to use them because they’re a fantastic airplane, and I’m going to take advantage of them,” Carlisle said. “The pilots are incredibly well-trained and they do incredible work in support of the joint war fight.”
http://www.defensenews.com/story/military/2016/01/13/report--10-retirement-indefinitely-delayed/78747114/
Why won't this obsolete piece of shit just fucking die already?
>>28537066
Because it's a meme with really good PR.
>>28537066
Because nothing else can do it's job yet.
>>28537157
>Because nothing else can do it's job yet.
F-15E, F-16, F-18, AC-130, B1
>>28537157
except the F-16, F-15, F18, B1, B2, B52 and F-35 in a few years
A-10's get talked into their targets when engaging in CAS just like every other aircraft, low and slow is a myth.
>>28537237
>doing a drive by at 100kph is just as effective as doing a drive by at 30kph
???
There's a reason fighters use guided munitions.
why doesn't the air force just get a new stealth plane for low & slow cas
>>28537235
>confusing high altitude CAS with low altitude CAS
>even mentioning the special snowflake AC-130
>>28537237
>low and slow is a myth
I assume you think tanks and carriers are obsolete as well.
>>28537359
Why doesn't the Navy just use modern materials and manufacturing methods to build new triremes?
>>28537041
America, more money than sense, as usual.
>>28537454
>Implying low-altitude cas is still a thing that the USAF wants
Dropping PGMs from high altitude is safer for both friendly ground troops and the aircraft that must deliver the munitions.
>>28537359
>stealth
>low and slow
>implying stealth does shit against an IR MANPADS or AAA fire.
look, the A-10 is a great aircraft. But it's getting old. It will continue to be used to it's full capacity until it gets retired. Then they will sell them to some 3rd world shithole or scrap them.
The F-35 is an amazing aircraft. No, it can't do exactly the same thing as an A-10. But it doesn't need to. Most CAS missions consist of a plane dropping a bomb on something using laser or GPS guidance, often from ground forces. The whole idea of this majestic beast cruising around low and spraying taliban with 30mm shells while surviving heavy AA fire is retarded. Anything the A-10's gun can do, a small diameter bomb from the F-35 can do, but from 20k feet up.
CAS missions will be just fine without the A-10. It was a wonderful aircraft, and it's served a great purpose.
Also, the F-35 is an aircraft that makes other aircraft better. It's command and control abilities, stealth, communications, sensors, internal fuel loadout, etc. allow it to act as a force multiplier. Pair an F-35 orbiting at 25k feet using it's advanced electro-optical sensors and radar to scope out ground targets and air targets and create a map of the battlefield, and send that data to Apache's, F-16's, F-15's, etc. It's scary good. Any nation flying F-35's will be able to totally dominate the airspace.
>>28537485
But what about the feelings of marines?
Won't you think about their feelings?
>>28537463
Stealth* trireme you plebeian
>>28537475
>my country can only afford <100 aircraft
>>28537498
Turns out the marines are going to have a WHOLE LOT of feelings floating about with the women joining up.
>>28537493
>implying stealth wouldn't also work on IR
>>28537463
>implying a supercavitating submersible stealth trireme wouldn't be the King of the Sea
>>28537485
Flying high is safer for the aircraft.
But it is not safer for the troops on the ground (inb4 blue on blue numbers while ignoring danger close rates) and has a precedent of being less effective.
>>28537509
>my country can't afford healthcare or education
>>28537041
>What a obsolete piece of shit
>...That does an effective job at it's intended role(s)
it could be killer for troop morale if we dropped the thing as well.
>>28537565
It was structured this way in order to keep the minorities and white trash down.
Incredibly effective.
I enjoy healthcare of a higher quality than any public health care of any country.
I will also get an education that is of higher quality than most other countries.
Suck it, nerd.
Eurofighter sucks btw.
>>28537565
You can't afford a military, healthcare or education?
What shithole do you live in so I know not to vacation there.
>>28537585
no partisan idiocy here. Just facts. Like I said, the A-10 is a great aircraft. But it won't be operational forever, and that's ok. The F-35 and other aircraft will adequately fill the gaps.
>>28537351
Notice how it is easy to pick out a dashed line while driving on the highway when you look really far ahead, but then it is much harder to do so when you look closer to the front of the car?
Well, aircraft go really high, and can see really far, so even though they are going 500+ mph, they can see things on the ground well.
IR cameras with high levels of zoom mean they can see individual people on the ground many miles away, from very high alt.
An F-22 or F-35 can see a hadji on the ground as well or better than an A-10 can see him at 3000ft using his eyeballs. But the A-10 CANT go high or fast. The A-10 is very, very slow. If it gets caught down near the deck by a shilka or SAM or something it will get SHREDDED, since it has no smash ( aka airspeed and ability to gtfo back to altitude).
I love the A-10 just like I loved the F-4, but its time to head out to pasture.
>>28537607
Everywhere that isn't the US, South Korea, and Japan.
China would be in there too, but while they can AFFORD healthcare, they choose to not provide it to the working-class plebs.
>>28537041
because the A-10 has its gun, and its a very big auotcannnon, and its a very agile subsonic aircraft that is really versatile as CAS. It can fly low and get very good battlefield awareness, and can clear treelines, kill tanks, blow out buildings, destroy a veichle convoy, all with the same gun. So it's very nice to have over the battlefied because 30 seconds after at pilot sees anything, it can do thigt maneuvers, get an angle and destroy the enemy.
It's a very practical frontline aircraft, awar winner, not a hangar queen.
>>28537563
>But it is not safer for the troops on the ground (inb4 blue on blue numbers while ignoring danger close rates) and has a precedent of being less effective.
I'm gonna need a source on that buddy.
>>28537563
>precedent of being less effective
Yeah, just like BVR missiles, amiright?
Just because something didnt work it the past, doesnt mean it wont work in the future. Technology changes.
Modern BVR missile have high PK.
Modern FLIR and smart weapons have outstanding accuracy for ground attack and CAS purposes.
>>28537524
Don't remind me.
>>28537493
>Anything the A-10's gun can do, a small diameter bomb from the F-35 can do, but from 20k feet up.
Just to note, an SDB costs $40k.
SDBII's are $250k each.
>>28537066
See
>>28537104
Yes and for good reason
>>28537661
That's a wonderful red herring anon, perhaps you might want to actually address the topic?
>>28537674
I'm not a Marine, but I'm hoping to be in 4 years.
I hope by that time this bullshit has been smoothed out. Won't stop me from trying to get my commission, but I won't be as happy about it.
A-10s are already restricted from flying too low. Low-altitude CAS is long dead with the prevalence of MANPADs these days.
>>28537649
The onus would be on you to show high altitude PGMs are safer for allied soldiers.
>>28537714
But we still fly helicopters
What a world
>>28537637
>because 30 seconds after at pilot sees anything
And that's how you get squads of dead marines.
A-10 pilots don't actually do this btw, they get talked in to their targets because the dots on the ground that are Taliban look very similar to the dots on the ground that are US soldiers.
>>28537634
>Notice how it is easy to pick out a dashed line while driving on the highway when you look really far ahead, but then it is much harder to do so when you look closer to the front of the car?
This is extremely misleading in the context of altitudes being discussed. Perhaps if low altitude CAS meant flying at treetop level.
>>28537714
>A-10s are already restricted from flying too low.
[citation needed]
>>28537729
It's just common sense: a precision bomb is more accurate than spraying bullets everywhere.
>>28537705
Well I thought I did, with:
>Modern FLIR and smart weapons have outstanding accuracy for ground attack and CAS purposes.
Smart bombs and missiles are more effective than cannon fire, and they can be employed from great range, with the same precision, and they do more damage to target.
A mudhen can fly at 35k ft, ID what kind of hat an enemy soldier is wearing from 10nm slant range, and proceed to drop a guided bomb or missile within 20ft of the target. This will kill the enemy very dead, very quickly, and will leave the aircraft very safe.
>>28537788
>I don't understand how things work in reality but if I say its common sense I can hide it
Blue on blue is primarily caused by misidentification or danger close.
>>28537634
>mfw B-1's blew up some of our soldiers because they flew too high to see the soldiers IR strobe
>>28537752
Slant range is slant range. 5 miles away and 10 miles high is the same as 10 miles away and 5 miles high.
Modern aircraft can see very far with high resolution. Thus at high speed they can see things clearly at great range and alt.
There is no need to be close to the target before firing, nor be at low altitude because of this.
>>28537843
>mfw an A-10 kills British soldiers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I6-2NJhnf4
>>28537806
>A mudhen can fly at 35k ft, ID what kind of hat an enemy soldier is wearing from 10nm slant range, and proceed to drop a guided bomb or missile within 20ft of the target. This will kill the enemy very dead, very quickly, and will leave the aircraft very safe.
So can an A-10, the difference is it has the option of doing other methods of CAS.
>>28537843
>mfw B-1's blew up some of our soldiers because they flew too high to see the soldiers IR strobe
That sounds like a mistake in tactics. They CAN fly high enough to remain invulnerable to AAA, yet still positively ID friendlies, but its sounds like they didnt for whatever reason.
And dont act like a low and slow aircraft has never fragged friendlies. Its war, it happens unfortunately.
>>28537886
Thank you for evidencing what I said about the primary causes of blue on blue :^)
>>28537890
>the difference is it has the option of doing other methods of CAS.
Such as? "Muh gun" doesn't count.
>>28537906
And it would appear the A-10 is just as vulnerable to those issues as other aircraft, if not more:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-john-mccain-iraq-afghanistan/22931683/
>>28537899
>And dont act like a low and slow aircraft has never fragged friendlies.
Said no one.
>>28537913
Actually it does :^), but that was not what I was referring to.
>>28537927
Its far more so because its an old fucking plane without any modern electronics
>>28537927
see >>28537563
Using partial statistics is dishonest :^)
>>28537973
Partly true.
>>28537963
>>28537977
>Not supporting either of these claims in any way
>>28537994
Funny, neither did you.
>>28538007
I guess we're done here then if you've got nothing.
There seems to be a misunderstanding in this thread. CAS does not refer to the plane's proximity to the ground. CAS refers to the proximity of the ordinance being dropped from the plane in relation to blue forces. That's why it's called close air support. If there were no friendlies nearby, it would be an airstrike.
>>28537688
>a-10 20mil + a downed pilot
FfsI am literally the biggest Republic fan nd I know that the a-10 needs to be put out.
>>28537041
We all know that the A-10 is being kept purely for political "feel good" points. But what about the AC-130? The Air Force has ordered a new version with completely updated weapons and systems. They must want to keep it around for real. The question is: why?
>>28537688
SDB-II is still a prototype and isn't seeing IOC until 2017. Like everything it's price will go down.
>>28539273
It has the ability (mainly the newer variants) to fly high and deliver heaps of ordnance - best of both worlds kind of situation.
>>28538863
Also, "close" is subjectively defined in actual distance - CAS can be dropping a 2000lb JDAM on a hill a couple of km away because some guys with dakkas were taking pot shots at our guys.
![ColossalJaggedClumber[1].webm](https://i.imgur.com/uZqcuSC.jpg "ColossalJaggedClumber[1].webm")
F-35's EOTS (internalized Sniper XR pod) looking at a hotel 49.1NM away.
>>28539521
That's that's spooky.
>>28539521
The EOTS took alot from sniper XR, but it is upgraded.
Its not quite a 1:1 copy
>>28537066
That's what a lot of people who've shot at the A-10 have said, Anon. And why it's not getting retired.
>>28537066
I love the sound of butthurt in the morning.
>>28537041
I'd like to see the A-10 retired...and replaced with the A-20 which is just a flying railgun with wings and engines bolted to it.
>>28537041
I'd like to see an updated version of an A-10...is it possible to put a bigger gun or two of them?
>>28537493
How about quad 25mm cannons on an upscaled A-10 and call it the metal storm?
>>28539696
Not him, and as i just said its a stupid feel good measure that will cost pilots their lives. The plane does not do well in non/semi permissive enviroments, and in permissive environments other platforms are objectively far superior, like the reaper.
If, god forbid, a pilot gets downed over syria and killed by ISIS, the blood will be on congressmen like McCain and that other bitch from Arizona
>>28539725
Pretentious McSally
>>28539273
I want a pair of 35mm auto cannons forward mounted on this thing and just be a larger A-10 with double the ammo capacity.
>>28539747
Quite frankly, if airizona wants a-10s so bad they should roll them into an AZ national guard squadron and foot the fucking bill themselves.
>>28539708
Yes.
>>28539701
I'm hard now.
>>28539676
Kek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDS_veGife4
Here's a video /k/ might enjoy.
>>28537463
I would rally behind this in congress.
PRO VINCERE
>>28537041
THIS BETTER NOT MAKE MY LOCKHEED MARKETING STOCK GO DOWN YOU LUDDITE TURDS!
>>28537788
>spraying
Gau-8 has pretty tight groupings, and it goes exactly where you point it when you go in for a dive, the pilot is always seeing the situation in front of him. It's as precise as any PGM, maybe more because there are no satellites or beams involved, and the angle and speed of the drop isn't a factor to allow mistakes.
>>28537351
Fast-movers can slow down every bit as well as the A-10 can. Just because it's top speed and cruise speed are shit-slow doesn't mean it's stall speed is.
>>28540020
>It's as precise as any PGM
Lol
No, it isn't.
>>28539273
>We all know that the A-10 is being kept purely for political "feel good" points.
We all know that the A-10 is being kept because both the US Army and USAF think close range CAS is more effective than simply dropping PGMs.
>>28540033
>Fast-movers can slow down every bit as well as the A-10 can
Actually they can't, do you want to crash an expensive strike fighter because you had it stall trying to get precious seconds of loiter over the area?
>>28539725
The F-35 just won't come, what else are are we going to use, all the things we are ALREADY USING along with the A-10 to fully cover the demand? You retire it now, you have less ready planes, it's not a complex formula.
>>28539725
>The plane does not do well in non/semi permissive enviroments
Few aircraft do beyond 'dart in, dart out'.
>congress making decisions on tactical weapon systems
Where did it all go so wrong?
>>28540050
Lol
It actually is, and has low collateral damage compared to a 250+ lb bomb.
>>28540090
Hasn't it always been that way?
>>28540075
>F-35 won't come
What.
>>28540099
An SDB has a blast radius of 10m; the GAU-8 at it's optimum range has 80% of it's rounds hit a 12m wide elipse.
>>28540090
When the army explicitly told Congress the A-10 was invaluable.
>>28540114
*8m radius for the SDB, 12m diameter minimum for the GAU-8, not including the other 20% of rounds and not including HEI effects.
>>28540105
They approve budgets, but this level of micromanagement is new.
>>28540099
>GAU-8/A: 12m CEP @ 1.2 km slant range
>AGM-114 Hellfire: 4m CEP at several times that range
>>28540075
The higher you are, the proportionately longer you get to look at a target. Twice the altitude, double the speed? Same amount of time looking at a target. Quadruple the altitude and twice the speed, twice as long looking at a target.
Also, the A-10's stall speed is about 120kts. Stall speed for the F-35 and F/A-18 is only about 10kts higher.
>>28540114
>An SDB has a blast radius of 10m
Its a blast/frag warhead.
>>28540075
>The F-35 just won't come,
USAF gets theirs this year.
Its pretty much already here
>>28540156
>ignoring warhead radius of effect
>>28540143
>this level of micromanagement is new.
Not really. From Congress, yes. But ineffectual micromanagement from necktie-wearing politicians is nothing new.
>>28540143
>They approve budgets, but this level of micromanagement is new.
McNamara was infamous for micro-managing this shit. Sometimes it worked out for the better, sometimes it didn't.
>>28540159
Presuming you are flying over flat ground.
>>28540090
They allow or deny the funding, that's the way it always was.
Except originally congress was stingy as fuck and didn't want to buy shiny expensive new toys.
>>28540136
*100m+ fragmentation radius for the SDB
>>28540184
lift body design
>>28540230
What does that have to do with your view of the ground.
>>28537157
The only thing the army needs this thing for is blowing up goat herders and toyota trucks. So if it's being deployed almost exclusively in counter-insurgency work these days, why aren't we just taking an existing platform, and building a purpose built plane for pounding hajis out in the middle East and North Africa? Using existing technology, off the shelf-components for almost everything, and with such a clear mission parameter, it seems like it would be a quick and simple fix. A main gun that's not as expensive or overkill to fire, reduced maintenance and operating costs, easier to repair, cheaper to replace, etc.
>>28540162
>>28540226
They have fuzes that can be adjusted in flight; if you were that pedantic over blast effects, you could just set it to penetrate and detonate underground.
>>28540184
Nope; do the geometry; if they're in a ditch and you can only see them from 45 degrees above the horizon, you still get the same amount of eyes on target from twice the altitude at twice the speed.
>>28540087
F-16 did better than the A-10 over iraq.
>>28540241
>why aren't we just taking an existing platform, and building a purpose built plane for pounding hajis out in the middle East and North Africa?
You don't need a specialized aircraft for those kind of jobs.
>>28540241
You just described the reaper drone.
Its objectively better than the a-10 in every way.
>>28540263
But muh BRRRT
>>28540230
Even without that, most 4th-gen fighters have lighter wing loading than the A-10.
>>28540252
Not by number of targets destroyed :^)
>>28540263
>You just described the reaper drone.
Not really, but you're right at least that the Reaper is objectively a better fit for COIN than the A-10 is.
I personally think the A-10 isn't entirely useless, but it's in a niche that doesn't necessarily need to exist. It costs as much as any fast-mover to operate, yet it's not as good as a true fast-mover in the type of situation you would want one. And for situations where you would want anything less, an A-10 is overkill (and somewhat sensor-deficient) and an Apache or UAV would be much more reasonable.
>>28540248
>They have fuzes that can be adjusted in flight; if you were that pedantic over blast effects, you could just set it to penetrate and detonate underground.
You mean on impact or at a preset altitude.
>>28540332
This is where we keep pretending that the purpose of flying at low altitudes is only related to weapon delivery.
>>28538997
How often does that actually happen in the current engagements?
>>28540317
Yes, even that.
>>28540382
Much more a-10s were damaged than any other fixed wing asset. That is what really hurt the wallet.
That, and they are getting old as fuuuck.
>>28540382
Serbia probably.
>>28540396
Nope, sorry to burst your bubble.
>>28540411
Yes, by sheer number of missions alone its true, unless you are talking about per capita.
>>28540332
Your drone is a piece of shit glorified RC toy that shouldn't have left the drawing board, I'd sooner trust a woman than a drone to get a job done right.
>>28537634
The A-10 is suprisingly agile in every game I've played it with.
>>28540403
Yes yes babby wants his shiny new toys that can't even fly straight over proven and tried technologies.
>>28537463
For a second there, I thought you said, "build new memes".
>>28540478
The issue is speed.
At lower speed those big ole wings makes the hog turn on a dime, but its slow as shit.
At altitude, you dont have to really turn all that hard due to your FOV being much wider.
>>28540492
The reason to turn hard is to avoid missiles and AA guns, though.
>>28540478
Yes battlefield 4 is an accurate simulation of the a-10.
>>28540534
>avoid missles
Whao nigga. Slow down.
The plane can litterally turn on a dime and it still would get hit by any missle.
The missle is traveling much faster, and once your in the NEZ, its all ogre.
>>28537066
Because it makes a really hot anthropomorphic plane with big American titties.
>>28540492
Can someone remind me why we're not using Apaches for all this shit?
>20000 ft service ceiling
>620 mile combat range
>can make far better use of cannons than any plane due to the ability to hover
>well out of range of MANPADs
>carries more missiles than a drone
I mean, I know we use them, but can't we use them more?
>>28540542
As long as you travel at 90 degrees to the direction of the missile, it will miss.
>I want cheap and efficient CAS with long loiter times!
UAVs
>I want CAS that can survive a modern battlefield
F-16, F-15E...
>I want muh 30mm brrrt
Asking to get shot at by a dozen iglas
Realistically, we should be using orbital lasers for CAS by now. It's 2016. It's time
>>28540545
...explain.
>>28540551
Modern missiles can turn a full 180 degrees after launch to the target. They can also - I mean I know this is a recent development so bear with me adjust their course in flight to track a target traveling perpendicular to them. I know it's incredible, but it's true.
The only sure way to beat a missile is to firstly know what's been fired at you. AAIR? TV? Active or semi active radar? Laser guided?
Then you know your countermeasures and you also know what kind of legs it has. IR seekers are short range, so turn and climb until it runs out of fuel. Semi-active are being guided by the firing plane initially, so force it to break off by firing your own missile at it before the missile goes active. Active are long ranged so you best hope you have enough distance to turn, climb and run. If you've got a TV guided missile chasing you, you dun fucked up, and unless you've got R-60s to shoot it down and balls the size of the Ticonderoga, you might as well eject now. Also good luck ever realizing it's been fired at you until it hits. That's what happens when you piss off the US Navy.
>>28539521
Holy fuck that's impressive. Although
>XR
Get out.
>>28540608
Oh, I forgot to mention laser. If you've got a laser guided missile that's been fired at your plane, you're probably fighting ISIS in a stolen 40s jet. Have another beer and ignore it.
>>28540617
What if you're fighting a T-72 firing a svir oh wait I'm already dead.
>>28540608
>They can also... adjust their course in flight to track a target traveling perpendicular to them
I don't believe it. Missiles move way too fast to turn that hard. The final 100m to target would, assuming the target is always turning so as to be at 90 degrees to the direction of the missile, incur more Gs than a missile could handle without falling apart or tumbling over.
>>28539521
But can it actually snipe?
>>28540653
With guided weapons of course.
>>28540660
With regards to that casino, would it be possible to guide a missile into a hotel room of the pilot's choosing? This is where I'm sketchy on the idea of single pilot bombers. I mean, the pilot needs to fly the plane at the same time the missile needs guiding.
>>28540643
>incur more Gs than a missile could handle
AIM-120s can pull 40G at 3000 MPH. That means a roughly 15000ft turn radius.
If you're at 90 degrees to the missile when it's 100 feet away from you, then yes, it's going to miss. The fact that it was going to miss was already decided at least 5 seconds ago. Otherwise it would've continued adjusting its course to intercept you.
>>28540680
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HaDE9KCk2o
Some mavericks also have a mode known as force correlate which allow it to home onto a specific part of a large object like a window of a building.
>>28540643
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_navigation
This isn't a video game.
>>28540680
Have you heard of autopilot, anon?
A: Set the autopilot to fly level
B: Range your target - this is the part where you see the landscape flying past at 700mph
C: Fix the camera in place
D: Adjust it and zoom in until you have an accurate fix
E: Authorization to fire
F: Track it as necessary, or not
G: No more target
>>28540702
>A: Set the autopilot to fly level
>B: Crash into Bellagio Casino while ranging target because no human to pilot aircraft
>>28540701
>Since the line of sight is not in general co-linear with the missile velocity vector, the applied acceleration does not necessarily preserve the missile kinetic energy. In practice, in the absence of engine throttling capability, this type of control may not be possible
So it isn't foolproof.
>>28540730
>crash into Bellagio Casino
>from 62 miles away and 30000 feet in the air
anon pls, y u do dis do me, pls stahp.
>>28540745
Not that guy, but I guess you can't read. Let me translate that for you:
>when the missile's fuel runs out, it won't have enough momentum to continue making course adjustments and tracking
or even simpler
>when it runs out of fuel it stops flying
>>28540759
What it actually means is that a missile with no throttling capability is not infallible. Since most missiles are rocket powered, they can't slow down or speed up as the equation requires for them to hit their target in some circumstances. The equation may also require the missile to make adjustments to it's velocity (direction) that it can't achieve, in some circumstances. A target traveling at sufficient speed perpendicular to the missile could create these circumstances.
>>28537637
>the A-10 has its gun, and its a very big auotcannnon, and its a very agile subsonic aircraft that is really versatile as CAS. It can fly low and get very good battlefield awareness, and can clear treelines, kill tanks, blow out buildings, all with the same gun.
Spoken like a true fudd.
>>28540350
SDB is also designed for (low level) bunker busting - it can penetrate 1.2m of steel reinforced concrete.
>>28540471
Predators (the little brother of Reaper) saved the day in the Battle of Takur Ghar - F-15s and F-16s couldn't strike an Al Qaeda stronghold that had a dozen or two Rangers pinned down (they were using either CCIP or GPS guidance for 500lb bombs). Someone decided to finally use the Hellfires on the Predator and that allowed the Rangers to fight their way to victory.
C A N T
B O G
T H E
H O G
>>28540616
Sorry, I've never worked with the XR (interwebs just say the EOTS is derived and improved on from it), only the ATFLIR.
They took the F-14 from us, but they will not take the A-10!
>>28540020
Iirc it's more accurate then the guns on fighters
>>28537606
Lol that butthurt amerifat
>>28540585
Current Year
>>28541125
Yep, but the F-35's GAU-22/A is equal in accuracy (other US fighters [excluding the Harrier] use the M61).
>>28537066
You couldn't be a bigger faggot.
>Muh F-35 and muh B-1B
Might as well said, "I'm a narrow minded contrarian dick licker."
Stfu
>>28541213
>180 rounds of 25mm has the same capability as 1,174 rounds of 30mm
>>28537041
Come the fuck on. Fucking Spreyfags and CDI shills leading congressman into further idiocy
>>28540534
>avoid missiles
is dis nigga fo serious?
>>28540643
fuck off, luddite
>>28541618
I never noticed that the A-10's gun was slightly off-center before. Why?
>>28537066
Because while the American armament lobby is a fucking retarded mob of money hungry leeches, they're not THAT stupid to put to sleep the only piece of hardware that is capable of laying immense amounts of harm and fear for literal spare change in military budget terms.
As long as the main enemy is goat fuckers, the A-10 is perfect for the job. Only /k/ is retarded enough to consider wasting precious airframe hours out of irreplaceable B-1's instead of using airframes that in any case will be scrapped in case of a major conflict.
>>28541646
Since it is a gatling the barrel that is actively firing is on the centerline.
>>28541646
Has to do with balancing the center of gravity while making space for the central landing gear. Also the firing barrel is at 9 o'clock, which is aligned with the centerline of the aicraft.
>>28540020
And yet, the A-10 is responsible for more blue on blue than anything else.
>Get MQ-9ER
>Fit M230 or similar system (120lb, lets say 150lb for mount)
>Other hardpoints used for ammunition storage
>Now have a 33-35+ hour endurance / loiter time air asset with the weight limit to carry more than 2,500 rounds with room to spare
>This shits all over the A-10
>>28541835
a) [citation needed]
b) all blue on blue happened because it was PRECISELY aimed un blues, not because rounds strayed from the target. That's not the A-10 to blame, but America and their habit of hitting friendlies.
>>28541839
>30x113
>same as 30x173
Go back to school.
>>28541902
I never implied that it was
Just for the purposes of the only thing worth keeping the A-10 around for - cheap COIN - its a far superior option.
>>28540547
It needs a denser network of bases to operate from. Low speed, small range.
>John McCain says its good
That means its shit people, wake up.
>>28541909
Except that its not? Drones currently are useful as recon and to nail targets from far away with missiles. If you leave them hovering close to the target with a flimsy little cannon they're in a dangerous situation.
>>28541924
> If you leave them hovering close to the target with a flimsy little cannon they're in a dangerous situation.
Anything that is capable of hitting an MQ-9 at the ranges an M230 can engage from accurately (~1,500–1,700 m) is going to shit all over an A-10C just as easily.
>flimsy
Its literally the cannon fitted to an Apache. It does absolutely fine, especially when you're not limited to a few seconds of gun-run.
>>28541941
>is going to shit all over an A-10C just as easily.
No, just no.
>It does absolutely fine
On a fucking Apache it does. Also: send in an Apache, then? You know, that thing that also carries missiles.
>especially when you're not limited to a few seconds of gun-run.
The A-10 can do dozens of a "few second" of gun runs, regarding the effectiveness of the much, much, MUCH more powerful guns... you can look videos by yourself.
Don't try to force drones into roles they're not suited for. Yet. In the future maybe, right now it's fucking stupid.
>>28541953
>No, just no.
Cool argument, really convinced me with that solid argument. An Igla will fuck up an A-10, and has.
>On a fucking Apache it does. Also: send in an Apache, then? You know, that thing that also carries missiles.
Why is 30mm from an Apache with FLIR any more deadly than from a drone with FLIR firing exactly the same round? The MQ-9 also fires missiles, and bombs, and is cheaper. Thats the entire point.
>>28541953
>The A-10 can do dozens of a "few second" of gun runs, regarding the effectiveness of the much, much, MUCH more powerful guns... you can look videos by yourself.
At a time, I mean. It takes time to re-orient and go in for another, which is disorienting unless you're going in for the same angle every time. Meanwhile the Cannon is engaging constantly.
It also stays on station for more than 10 times the length of time. THE most important factor in CAS/COIN.
I'm not sure why you're so salty about drones. COIN is what they're perfectly suited for.
This thread has triggered my BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT!
>>28541896
And the A-10 just happens to do it more often than any other platform.
>>28541917
We need terms limited by age. In the old days people often croaked before they got senile.
>>28542121
Maybe its because it runs the vast majority of CAS sorties where such errors are easier to do, genius?
Guess what missile has the highest ratio of blue on blue in bvr combat? The AMRAAM. Do you ever see people claiming that the AMRAAM should be put out of service?
Apache and drones are great, but something with troop delivery capacity would be better.
USA could build some Hind clones for some Rhodesian-style COIN maneuvers.
>>28542083
>>28540547
>20000ft ceiling
Right where the mountains in Afghanistan start. Choppersare dogshit in that theater because of the altitude.
I haven't read the thread, but is this actually news? I don't really follow all the shit about the A-10, but I knew it wasn't going out of service, since I work in a GE Aviation plant and they ramped up production of A-10 engine parts back around September-October.
>>28542201
>Maybe its because it runs the vast majority of CAS sorties
Except it doesn't, at all.
The B-1 does.
>>28537788
>common sense
>>28540241
>what is China
>what is Russia
Dumbfuck
>>28541156
>btfo
>"HURR BUTTHURT"
Enjoy waiting three months for an X ray, Ahmed
>>28542201
But here's the thing. The B-1B does most of the CAS. The A-10 is second followed by the F-15E, F-16C.
>>28539521
Ok, that seriously fucking impressive.
But as someone whos not really deep into optics: How can they achieve this with such a small lense?
>>28542467
yankee space magic
>>28542330
Nah i live in an european country with very good healthcare now.go steal some shit and go bankrupt because of an illnes tyrone
>>28542467
I don't think its really a camera in the traditional sense of the word.
>>28537890
>So can an A-10, the difference is it has the option of doing other methods of CAS.
And at a fraction of the cost.
>>28537993
...is that a BRAIN in the pod?!
>>28542542
Getting shot down, losing both plane and pilot, by MANPADS isn't "cheap" anon.
>>28537890
service ceiling of an A-10 is 13.7km. Try again.
>>28537886
That's what you get for taxing america's tea 240 years ago
>>28542258
>still pushing this lie
>>28542484
i see a normal camera with two extra mirrors and a lens
I cant wait till people start dying as a direct result of A-10s being involved.
>>28543407
>24 hour boom boom from the lancers
you're retarded m8
>>28537066
Because, unlike the F-35, the A-10 is good at what it does. Stay salty, my friend.
>>28544059
lazy bait is lazy
>>28540547
Have you not seen the videos of apache cannons? They could fire 1000 rounds and miss a person
99% of the time they are engaging with cannons within MANPAD range
>>28537454
>I assume you think tanks and carriers are obsolete as well.
Exactly. PGM is a whole new ballgame. Especially when delivered by a stealthy, fast, high-flying platform with sensor fusion.
That's why the army is so hot for the A-10. They understand that the F-35 will make half the Army obsolete, too. why bother with Abrams, Bradleys, and Strykers when you can just have more F-35s?
>>28544939
You could buy, crew, and supply a hell of a lot more abrams & bradleys than F-35's m8
>>28544939
>why bother with Abrams, Bradleys, and Strykers when you can just have more F-35s?
I guarantee I'm the biggest F-35fag on this site and even I think that's going too far.
>>28545046
It's >>28544462
was it yet mentioned that F-35 is useless for CAS while in stealth mode? it can carry only two bombs in internal stores.
with external stores mounted it becomes an f-16, only worse.
>>28545432
>F-35 is useless for CAS while in stealth mode?
Not if that's the ONLY way to deliver ordinance in a hostile environment.
>>28540545
this 100 times
>>28545453
if the environment is that hostile you wouldn't send in a fighter anyway you'd just spam JSOWs from a distance
>>28545432
In any sort of environment where an F-35 has to be internal loadout only
The A-10 is COMPLETELY useless
While the F-35 can at least deliver 2 to 6 bombs.
>>28541618
>Implying accuracy = capability
>>28545507
You don't always have the luxury of knowing the exact coordinates of your target ahead of time.
>>28545432
>it can carry only two bombs in internal stores.
Eight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Diameter_Bomb
![CloseAirSupport_chart2B[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/hvh4oEE.jpg "CloseAirSupport_chart2B[1].jpg")
>>28542201
>>28545507
For CAS?
>>28545770
These charts never mention the number of aircraft.
>>28539708
They've already done the improvement that removes the weakest component of the A-10.
>>28545909
Why does it even matter? A-10fags love to claim that the A-10 is the only platform which can perform cas missions. And it turns out that the A-10 doesn't even perform the majority of CAS missions.
>>28545770
>Coalition and other
Oh shit, that's mostly Tornados isn't it? Why are we having swingwings doing CAS?
>>28545968
Not real
>>28545909
>because it runs the majority of CAS sorties
>Chart is "CAS Sorties by Aircraft From Recent Operations"
>A-10 not numba wan
>>28546001
Tornados, Aussie / Canadian / etc Hornets, B-1Bs, drones, etc.
>>28545968
>people still are falling for this obvious photoshop.
We did it Reddit! ;^D
>>28545995
>strawman
>>28546032
To be fair, DARPA is still or was experimenting with the idea of unmanned A-10s as part of the PCAS program; just just never removed the cockpit.
>>28546011
I assume you understand the implication of ~8 F-16/F-18 for every A-10.
>>28546054
>YOU CAN'T PERFORM CAS WITH THE F-35!
>Only LOW & SLOW AIR CAN PERFORM CAS!
*meanwhile in the real world, multi-role fighters are used for CAS all the time*
>>28546057
The concept of an unmanned A-10 was dropped before the program even started.
>>28546051
You should go back there :^)
>>28546101
>defending a strawman with another strawman
>>28546093
>Implying that's a normal ratio
>>28545432
>with external stores mounted it becomes an f-16, only worse.
>Carries more fuel and weapons
>more integrated sensors
>"worse"
>>28545770
Kind of deceptive. Its purely sorties. If you start talking about individual strikes rather than takeoff/landings, the B1 would pull ahead due to massive payload and loiter.
>>28546146
>B1 would pull ahead
True, and you can see that in the bottom-right graph where it looks at total weapons released.
Send them to Taiwan. They can strafe Mainland China's landing craft.
>>28546226
They can get shot down and go swimming while China blitz's Taiwan
Then we can spend a year or two of war pretending the marines are equipped to do amphibious operations.
>>28546257
Blitzes Taiwan with what? China has to cross either the ocean or the air to even get to Taiwan.
>>28546304
hundreds of thousands of troops loaded on cargoships
>>28546315
Pew pew with some JDAMs and those cargoships are gone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQeWD6hm6Ak
>>28546329
Not to mention Taiwan has plenty of high-rise urban areas, which are a goldmine for defenders.
This is the spread of the GAU 8.
>>28545770
F/A-18
Nice to see the navy being competent.
>>28545743
>>28545817
if you find the need to fly CAS in an area covered by active IADS you probably fucked up the strategy.
