Does anybody honestly think that the F-35 can win this? There is simply NO WAY that the F-35 can beat the A-10 in a head-to-head competition in close air support. It simply cannot be done. The A-10 was purpose-built for close air support and it is it well-respected in that role. Meanwhile the F-35 struggles to even take-off sometimes. There is really no question who will win. The only question is: how will the Air Force try to rig to the contest to say otherwise?
http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/f-35-pilots-not-happy-perform-10-comparison-tests-16090
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/heres-exactly-how-congress-wants-to-measure-the-a-10-wa-1773949233
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/05/02/a-10-air-force-f-35-replacement-mcsally-congress/83824780/
>>29873854
>There is simply NO WAY that the F-35 can beat the A-10 in a head-to-head competition in close air support. It simply cannot be done.
Test Scenario -
A-10 and F-35 both set as ready birds on the deck. CAS mission request 100 miles out. Both birds launch at the same time.
At max CLEAN speed A-10 takes 13:40 to arrive and deliver ordnance.
At Max Speed F-35 arrives at 5 minutes, drops ordnance, returns and is almost airborne against before A-10 arrives on station.
Even doing 1,000mph instead of Max 1,200mph the F-35 can still arrive and return to base prior to A-10 arriving on station.
Which arrives back to the major inherit flaw of the A-10... IT'S FUCKING SLOW.
>>29874079
>Which arrives back to the major inherit flaw of the A-10... IT'S FUCKING SLOW.
.....yeah, it was designed that way. And it's not a flaw, it's apart of its attack tactics, just as the AH-64 was designed to hover while firing agms. You clearly do not understand air to ground warfare or the best tactics needed to be used in order to effectively employ the weapons fired from these aircraft
>>29874172
>You clearly do not understand air to ground warfare or the best tactics needed to be used in order to effectively employ the weapons fired from these aircraft
Clearly you are speaking of yourself, because A-10's spend most of their time at 30k feet like everyone else.
>>29874172
If we were still in the 90's you would have a point. Except it's not the 90's and since incorporation of the Sniper Pod system the A-10 doesn't fly low anymore in it's engagement profiles and instead flies up high where it's nice and safe...... and role can be fulfilled by F-16, F-15, F-35, F-18, B-1, AC-130.
It's design is antiquated compared to modern warfare and CAS request where time literally is of the essence and going slower than even a P-3 Orion is not considered a plus.
>>29874282
>AC-130
No, spooky still flies low at MANPAD altitudes to let off all that dakka.
>>29873854
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/05/05/f-35-a-10-air-force-fighter-jet/83961964/
>Commanders can send an A-10 into a high-threat battlefield, “but you can only do it once,” Chari said.
>>29874371
>an aircraft that can only fly high in low threat areas
>only destroys static targets
>limited weapon capabilities
>>29873854
At this point, Congress needs to step in and save the A-10. The Air Force has a duty to support our troops in combat (whether they like it or not) and the A-10 is the best plane for doing that, period. There needs to be a law saying that the number of A-10's in service cannot fall below 150, even if it means putting out a contract to produce more A-10 planes.
>>29874574
Why not use strike eagles/vipers/F-35/Apaches/whatever else?
>>29873854
why not develop a newer CAS aircraft instead? use the approach in design they took for the a-10 but use modern design/development.
>>29874686
>why doesn't the Air Force use the Army's helicopters?
Without the A-10 itself, the US Air Force has no true CAS plane, period. Which is a problem, because both branches need a low fixed wing attack craft, the Army requests A-10 support for joint operations just as much as it is called in on ordinary attack missions. A-10s often provide escorts for UH-60s and don't fly much higher than they do, both attacking any ground tarets and acting as a diversion for troop insertions and spec open missions. There is no replacement aircraft for that when the A-10 is gone.
>>29874574
Following your opinion with, period, is not a justification.
The A-10 is overqualified and expensive for COIN and under qualified for CAS against a capable opponent.
>>29874888
>because both branches need a low fixed wing attack craft,
Considering A-10's rarely fly low in practice, no they don't.
>>29874895
>>29874910
>Literally has no idea of the capabilities of the A-10, or the wide variety of, and cross joint operations it is used in.
>>29874765
>newer CAS based off A-10 design
We GDI now
>>29874936
As cool as BRRRRRT is small precision guided munitions beat it out. Once they figure laser weapons out the A-10 is relegated to history like like steam locomotives.
>we BZZZZZT now with F-35s
>>29875037
The only reason anyone even thinks BRRRRT is good is because of looser ROE & a lack of cluster munitions
>>29875037
The F-35 will never fly below 18,000ft, it will never perform any similar mission to the A-10, nor will it provide any of the FAC/CSAR, helo escort, missions that any low fixed wing would. The fact is, the F-35 isn't "replacing" the A-10 at all. We're just going to go forward with no plane performing those roles, and hope for the best.
>>29873854
There are pros and cons for each jet; the A-10 is considerably cheaper per flight hour and when using the GAU-8 vs JDAMs (not that the GAU-8 is the A-10's leading weapon). The A-10 does also loiter a little longer between requiring visits to a tanker and its armour does give it a bit more protection from small arms.
However, the A-10 is also slow to get to the fight (also slow to get up to a tanker) and is highly vulnerable to modern air defences. It's GAU-8 also means it generally puts itself at extra risk, while it's limited thrust means it has trouble gaining a safe altitude after a gun run.
The F-35 is about 50-70% more expensive per flight hour, doesn't have as great a cannon / as much gun ammo and can't loiter quite as long as the A-10 under CAS mission conditions. It also won't take as much damage as an A-10 before being mission killed or outright taken down if hit in the right spot.
However, it is a lot faster, has better sensors / pilot interfaces for better situational awareness, carries more modern weaponry (eg, the SDB and soon, things like the SDB II, Brimstone, SPEAR, etc), and as the key difference, can provide CAS in medium and high intensity theatres.
When they do this test (assuming after 3F is done), if it's not rigged, they'll state that retaining the A-10 or replacing it with A-X is recommended for el-cheapo CAS, while giving a thumbs up to the F-35's ability to do CAS in high end threats and in comparison to legacy fast jets.
>>29874888
>>29875153
The F-35 will fly below 18,000ft; F-16s and F/A-18s sometimes do gun runs and shows of force, the F-35 is no different. F-35 pilots have also already been doing CSAR / escort missions to great success. The May issue of Combat Aircraft Magazine had a good article on it; I'm creating screenshots now, will dump soon
And the shitposting begins again
>>29875316
>The F-35 will fly below 18,000ft; F-16s and F/A-18s sometimes do gun runs and shows of force, the F-35 is no different
The F-35 literally is different, and will NOT be doing that...
>>29875427
So they threw in the GAU-22 for shits and gigs? Why wouldn't it?
Also, beginning dump of that article; the CSAR stuff starts near the end of Page 4 (image 2)
>>29875491
2/5
>>29875503
3/5
>>29875530
4/5
>>29875549
5/5
>>29875491
>GAU-22
Very early on, the F35 wasn't going to have a multi barrel gun.
It was a late addition, hence the stupid ass fairing for the GAU.
>>29874936
>literally no idea how the A-10 is actually used, but needs to be right
>>29875570
A revolver autocannon would still have a flaring.
>>29875491
>>29875503
>>29875530
>>29875549
>>29875569
Interesting read, thanks.
I mean the fucking mudhen basically does all the CAS anyways, and considering how the A-10 after getting shredded in desert storm now flies at 30k like any other reasonable aircraft I don't really see the point in keeping it around.
Of course god forbid we loose some jobs.
>>29873854
If by "built for CAS" you mean built for tank hunting which it no longer is capable of doing, then sure.
The A-10 is and has been shit.
A-10 fags are worse than fucking gliderfag.
>>29873854
At this point? No, I don't. The F-35 isn't wired for external weapons at this point, IIRC. That comes with the next block, I think.
>>29873854
>memeplane vs another memeplane
I'm not even sure what's the best way of shitposting here. Buy frogfoots?
>>29875491
>Blue Four
I thought it's BluFor for Blue Forces and RedFor for Red Forces?
>>29875720
With Block 3i it doesn't (being used for USAF IOC later this year), but Block 3F does next year.
>>29875744
BluFor does stand for Blue Force, but they're talking about a "Blue Four" - I'm not familiar with the term (I'm not / have never been a military pilot), but as they say, it refers to "a young wingman with very little experience."
The Blue part might be some twist of Blue Falcon though.
>>29873854
>>29874574
>At this point, Congress needs to step in and save the A-10.
No, they need to stop fucking around and preventing the Air Force from retiring it gracefully.
>>29875743
>I'm not even sure what's the best way of shitposting here
The Army ought to develop a dedicated CAS aircraft for themselves, which has to be a VTOL tiltrotor so they can claim it's a helicopter, in order to get around the law that they can't have fixed wing aircraft due to separation of powers
>>29875945
>The Army ought to develop a dedicated CAS aircraft for themselves
>>29875945
I mean, the Army Future Vertical Lift could be a tiltrotor, so they're not opposed to it. And the Army DOES operate fixed wing aircraft, actually. Mostly transport planes.
>>29874574
>can't get a decent CAS plane because muhreens insist all CAS planes need a 1 ton dildo strapped to it.
>>29875491
>So they threw in the GAU-22 for shits and gigs?
I doubt you were trying to be ironic, buthe the F-35s gun was literally a retroactive addition to appease the realists who know fighters need guns. Originally it wasn't supposed to have any gun at all.
>>29874505
>>29874371
I really wish the AC130 wasn't so fucking shitty.
I hope the new ghostrider is as badass as the name implies
>>29874079
If you want to make that kind of claims you have to use sortie rate rather than speed.
>>29874371
Spooky is the Douglas AC-47, not the damn AC-130
>>29875037
>As cool as BRRRRRT is small precision guided munitions beat it out
Small precision guided munitions cost enormous amount of money.
Hello military-industrial complex.
>>29876806
Both were called spooky.
>>29876808
Many of the cheaper ones cost less than a single flight hour.
>>29877351
Not many; an APKWS rocket is like $20,000
>>29877498
Considering that with that one rocket you're probably killing 2-3 soldiers, it's a good investment.
Gashunk!
>>29875945
>The Army ought to develop a dedicated CAS aircraft for themselves
Hello?
Why not replace the A-10 with the AH-64 Apache?
It should be even better at CAS no?
>>29878432
The Army actually does not consider the Apache to be CAS. It is "Close Combat Support" instead.
>>29878432
>>29878461
Source:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a570047.pdf
>>29878461
It's a meaningless distinction, really. Possibly done to reduce possible red tape with normal "CAS" missions. Possibly because the Army just feels like it.
>>29875037
>not retrofitting a laser projector in lieu of the GAU-8
>>29874888
daily reminder that CAS is a mission set.
>captcha literally 420
>>29875816
>>29875744
fighters fly as four ships, and are referred to as 1 through 4. 1 is the flight lead and is experienced, and is responsible for the formation and both elements of two ships. 3 is a 2-ship flight lead at minimum, and is therefore less experienced. 2 and 4 are often the least experienced and newest guys. so "Blue 4" is the guy who just finished MQ last week and is pumped to finally have a ride without a gradesheet.
>>29874172
It's a flaw if your guys will be overrun in 10 minutes and it takes 13 to arrive.
>>29875816
I think if it's really blue four then it's a newbie pilot in the 4 position towards the rear of a 4 man flight. Don't know how much has changed since ww2 which is where I know this from but I assume things like that remain the same
>>29878526
And if you design an aircraft to fly at near mach 2, you're designing an aircraft that can't fly slow, and attack and provide cover like a true CAS aircraft should. But I doubt you understand the intricacies of aerodynamic design
>>29878625
>you're designing an aircraft that can't fly slow
But it can.
>and attack and provide cover like a true CAS aircraft should.
But it can.
>>29878625
it's not 1963, we can use computers to design aircraft now grandpa.
>>29878461
CAS means asking the airforce for help, while CCS is intergarted Army support so you're just being a retard.
>>29878625
>And if you design an aircraft to fly at near mach 2, you're designing an aircraft that can't fly slow
That's a blatant lie. Sure, the tradeoffs do exist. Designing for trans and supersonic performance does generally speaking cause tradeoffs in lift at low speeds (hence the swing wing on the F-14), to say that it "can't go slow" is an utter misnomer- that would be ignorant at best and academic dishonesty at worst. Sure, they don't have as low a stall speed as the A-10, but to be frank that isn't very important. With modern munitions and sensors, you can be significantly higher, where your marginally higher stall speed is not an issue in the slightest. This puts aside the point that flying an A-10 into a high threat environment is suicide, precisely due to its lack of speed and acceleration due to focus on lift.
>>29874172
the tactic of going so slow that you're easy to shoot down
>>29875491
At least the F-35-B just has the option of the gunpod, so it can be left behind when people finally realize guns on fighter aircraft are fucking stupid in 2016
>>29874079
No fucking way the 35 could be shut down, re loaded, ran up, pilot walked, jet turned back up, final checked, and launched within the amount of time to give it a competitive 2nd run.
No, the A-10 was not built for close air support. It was built for interdiction, thinning out Soviet armored units before they reach NATO units. It's slow speed just happened to make it appropriate for close air support.
Once upon a time, CAS meant low and slow attacks to ensure accurate strikes. Modern guided weapons have changed this. Bombs can be dropped from higher altitudes with higher accuracy from longer range. When combined with a high speed and high altitude, a single aircraft can cover a much larger area.
No, that single plane you never see dropping a single bomb isn't as cool as something swooping in at 200 feet with cannon fire before dropping a string of bombs. It is just as effective though.
If you want a spiritual A-10 replacement, look at light turboprops like Bronco or Super Tucano.
>>29878461
>>29878702
You're both wrong. CAS = Close air support. There is no such thing as "CCS". Not sure where you got that acronym from. You have CCA which is a close combat attack, carried out by a rotor aircraft, not fixed wing.
>>29875913
I wish they fucking would just get rid of it quietly but no everybody is to sentimental over it.
>>29878668
You can slow down a fighter jet to the speed of an A-10, but it isn't going to be maneuverable at that speed at all because of the short wings. Look at this. Note that the A-10 has two nice long, straight wings. This is ideal for maximizing maneuverability at slow-speed. It also allows the A-10 to carry a large number of bombs underneath the wings. Read up what actual A-10 pilots say about the aircraft and you'll consistently read them talk about the A-10's superbly tight turning radius which makes it easy for them to stay within the area where they are needed while still having the ability to point the aircraft in a different direction.
>>29878776
>It was built for interdiction, thinning out Soviet armored units before they reach NATO units.
>Designed based on experiences in Vietnam
>Vietnam had Soviet armor columns
>>29878815
F-35 has great supermanouverability and kinematics similar to an F/A-18. Perform fine at low speeds.
Carries more than the A-10, too.
>>29878815
This is where countless youtube video's of other aircraft pulling tight turns at low altitudes are posted.
And your picture, which looks to be something I posted previously, is a normal CAS loadout and not a 'large number of bombs'.
>>29878815
Low speeds are good for COIN only, and even then COIN where you know your opponent has no MANPADs or any form of air defence.
>>29878776
>No, the A-10 was not built for close air support.
Wrong. The A-10 was designed directly based on the experiences that the US had fighting in Vietnam. It was found that just using helicopters alone was not sufficient for supporting ground troops. The US learned the benefit of having a slow-speed aircraft that could support ground troops in combat. Fast planes like the Phantom or the Skyhawk simply couldn't get the job done.
>>29878879
>COIN isn't the majority of fighting that the US military does nowadays
>>29878908
>Implying planning only for COIN isn't completely stupid
>>29878921
>Keeping a small number of A-10's around means we're "planning only for COIN"
Nice strawman bro.
>>29878908
Yep, and drones / attack helicopters and every other multirole do it just fine.
>>29878930
Theres little point.
The cost of the logistics for a whole other airframe that doesn't even do the majority of CAS even in a COIN environment is stupid, and it doesn't even do it any better than multiroles.
>>29878519
>>29878558
I get the 4 part, what I'm not entirely sure on is the Blue part, hence the supposition about the potential link to Blue Falcon (although more it's more likely just some boring Blue = USAF 'green')
>>29878886
Not really true. The A-10 was meant as a replacement for the A-7 Short Little Ugly Fucker and to kill the Army's AH-56 Cheyenne program. It was also almost immediately rendered mission-obsolete by General Creech's reforms that shifted away from low-altitude unguided weapon runs towards medium altitude precision weapons.
>>29878940
Ask anybody whose fought on the ground the last 10 years what plane does CAS best and they'll say the A-10.
>>29878969
Ground troop erection counts are the least effective way to measure CAS effectivity.
>>29878969
The opinion of 11x's is more than fucking worthless, senpai.
>>29878969
>if you ask any old business executive what programming language is best they're gonna say COBOL
>congress should make every business use COBOL as their primary language
This is you.
>>29878930
A-10's are not usable in contested airspace, so keeping them around is 'planning for COIN'
>>29878969
>A-10 GUN REAL LOUD
>I LIKE A-10 IS GOOD
>>29879055
the A-10 is usable in contested airspace, but not for neocon imperialists waging a media war and can't afford any losses because the wanna project the "USA Untouchable" meme.
Don't mix up usable with contemporary media faggotry pleasant.
>>29881667
Its not usable, full stop. In the opinion of the USAF and anyone with a functional brainstem.
>>29881667
>the A-10 is usable in contested airspace
Sure, if you want them to subsequently spend more time grounded than flying missions.
>>29881722
>MY ANUS HURTS
>>29881667
who cares about expensive dead pilots and busted planes lmao
t. you
>>29881667
My statement is based on its performance in Desert Storm.
And anything is usable in contested airspace, the relevant question is "More than once?".
>>29881741
...Maybe get a cream?
Not sure why you would share that here, anon
>>29881740
why would that be?
>>29881752
that's the point, it can take a few .50s to the airframe and the pilot will still make it home to base.
>>29878969
The only idea worse than talking to grunts is actually listening to grunts.
>>29876755
>realists who know fighters need guns
>idiots who know fighters need guns
FTFY
>>29881957
Or you could just not get hit by fucking .50s while flying in the first place.
>>29877498
>$20,000 is a lot
Look, militarily, that's not, it might be to you in your everyday life, but in a war, its not.
It's not World War fucking Two, saving say $20,000 each flight isn't going to win or lose a war for the United States.
>>29881957
So your complaint is that guided munitions are too expensive for CAS.
And your solution to this is to fly an expensive plane and pilot into gunfire.
>>29878815
the a-10 doesn't fly low and slow anymore so that means nothing
because it does not fly low and slow anymore, it has no reason for existing
because, given that it no longer flies low and slow, it does nothing that fast air can't do
therefore, it is a redundant aircraft, because it cannot be used to reduce the numbers of fast air, therefore it is duplicating aircraft and increasing cost
it used to make sense to retain it because there was still a lot of life in the airframe, and their tactics it was designed for only became obselete during its service life. so it was already money spent, and moving them up to thirty thousand feet still provided a good enough return on the invested money
they are now at the end of their lifespans and now do nothing other than increase cost to the airforce
unless you're going to continue to argue that they don't operate at 30k like everyone else
>>29882211
>gunfire
>Implying it would even make it that far
>>29875503
>>29875530
>>29875549
>>29875569
The 422 TES is one of the most elite group of fliers out there. They literally write the tactics manuals for the USAF. I'd trust what they say about the F-35 over anybody else on the planet.
>>29882179
the fuel cost for a training sortie for a F-35 is $15k.
>>29881667
>the military only wants to limit pilot and airframe losses due to 'media faggotry'
aha..ahaha....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You stupid fuck.
>>29881916
Damage.
>>29882236
So less than $20,000 then, that's even better.
>>29882285
You a DC because that is some serious damage control friend
>>29875316
>The F-35 is about 50-70% more expensive per flight hour
A-10 cpfh: $11k
F-35 cpfh: $35k
L2math nub
>>29881957
but more than likely it'll get hit by something bigger than 50. if it does that.
>>29882480
>quote a figure of $20,000 based on the cost a missile quoted by someone else
>point out that this is fuck all
>someone else points out that an hour of flight time is $15,000, which is even less
>I point out that this is still fuck all
>HURRRR DAMAGE CONTROL
It's not a lot of money, accepting shit planes just to save a few tens of thousands is fucking retarded and so are you.
>>29876026
>>29878416
>No loiter time
>shot down by AKs
>>29882487
Flight hour cost isn't really something you can know until its actually operational.
Quoting a single rough figure as if you've blown someone out is pretty childish.
>>29882528
Russia is able to operate Hi-24 and Hi-28 in Syria all the time. Why would the Apache have any more trouble?
>>29882580
Replace that with Mi-24 and Mi-28.
>>29879055
F-35s aren't usable for CAS in contested airspace, either. No matter which airframe is used for CAS, it will require support for SEAD and top cover.
>>29882596
But guess what: the F-35 can actually help "contest" the air-space. The A-10 cannot do that.
>>29882596
a VLO multi role strike jet that can be its own escort and still function at medium altitude against a decent IADS without every single SEAD striker out there isn't useful?
>>29882596
The A-10 can't be used in ANY level of contested airspace.
If your enemy has shitloads of manpads, they're not likely to be able to touch an F-35 with them.
>>29882596
?
why isn't it usable for CAS
>>29882615
Cus it can't low n slow gun run boy! You need to be low low low to use your eyes and do a gun run on hadji, it puts the fear of god into them hoooo-eee
etc etc
>>29882580
Russia is willing to do something we are not. Namely, killing every motherfucker in the area because they may or may not be hostile. The US actually requires trying to avoid civilian casualties and follow stupid rules like visual confirmation and having to be fired at first. Could you imagine the shitstorm if the news was reporting the US using the Russian method of pacification?
>>29882596
>F-35s aren't usable for CAS in contested airspace, either.
..yes they are.
>>29882632
>Russia uses carpet bombing
Well memed my friend.
>>29882632
>visual confirmation
>avoiding murdering the civilian populace
>stupid
Well if you say so kid.
>>29882613
>>29879055
A-10's were literally used in high threat environments, on purpose, because they were the only fixed wing that could fly low enough to survive the threats, and return fire
Read a fucking book you mongoloids
>>29882603
If it's loaded for CAS what do you think it's carrying that can help it contest the airspace. Also keep in mind that every minute contesting the airspace is a minute not doing it's fucking job of supporting pinned down ground troops.
>>29882605
If it's loaded for CAS it isn't VLO because the external hardpoint are in use.
>>29882650
>lack of reading comprehension: the post
>>29882662
that's not what that book's saying.
low altitude ingress kills your fuel economy/range/loiter.
the A-10's weren't the ones shooting back with HARMS either. they never carried the HARM Targeting Pod
>>29882662
Guess what, F-35 would have done a better job, get over it.
>muh survivability
If you're getting hit, you're doing it wrong in the first place.
>>29882663
it's got internal hardpoints where you can fit bombs. and if needed you can shoot the gun.
>>29882663
>If it's loaded for CAS what do you think it's carrying that can help it contest the airspace.
AIM-120D. The F-35 has dedicated A2A slots. It will ALWAYS have at least two A2A missiles in a loadout.
>>29882662
>because they were the only fixed wing that could fly low enough to survive the threats, and return fire
Does not say any of that
>>29882663
>If it's loaded for CAS it isn't VLO because the external hardpoint are in use.
and?
>>29882674
>not explaining why a reply is wrong: the post
And I quote
>stupid rules like visual confirmation and having to be fired at first
>>29882662
>A-10's were literally used in high threat environments, on purpose
Yup, and after suffering 3 losses in a day the unit commander asked them to be withdrawn.
The instance you posted was hardly a "high threat environment." Flying bait while heavily supported by SEAD elements well after you've already established air supremacy is something literally every plane can do (more safely, I might add, as the A-10 doesn't have the best countermeasures suite).
When the A-10 was actually committed to low-level operations in a high threat environment in the Gulf War, they were withdrawn after a single day. Turns out that the A-10 can't hold up to AAA and MANPADS nearly as well as people claim.
>>29875316
>and can't loiter quite as long as the A-10 under CAS mission conditions
Whut? Even with the long legs it has? Why can't the F-35 loiter even longer than the A-10, given F-35s high fuel fraction? A-10 has pathetic range, it stands to reason it has pathetic loiter endurance as well.
>>29882723
>after suffering 3 losses in a day the unit commander asked them to be withdrawn.
Literally posting false information, and doing so about a completely different conflict. Jesus christ, kid, other people here can read you know.
>>29882753
An A-10's combat radius is lower, but thats mostly because it flies much slower;
Saying an F-35 has a combat radius 3 times the size doesn't mean much if that is a dash lasting 30 minutes, but it takes the A-10 2 hours. The A-10's been in the air longer.
and yes, those numbers are arbitrary.
>>29882787
Not false in any way, and its kind of meaningless to if it was in a different conflict or not; the basic elements didn't change.
>>29882808
>please stop bringing up a war in which A-10's dominated. Please, Please, please, stop
>>29882818
>war in which A-10's dominated
Yes and we already established that Circa 90's A-10 was fine. It's post Sniper-Pod Upgrade (2005ish) that it became regulated to high flying bomb taxi and lost any edge it had over other assets.
>>29882818
>please stop bringing up a war that A-10's dominated
There hasn't been one.
Fulda gap never happened, its been obsolete since that was apparent.
>>29882818
>dominated
???????
>>29882787
Ah my bad, it was six over the course of the war, of which at least four were to MANPADS, and all of which came after approval to fly low-level operations was finally granted.
>>29882818
>dominated
Performing well under absolute air supremacy is hardly impressive, m8. What was it doing that other planes weren't doing better? Hell, Allied Force is where we really started the trend of having F-15Es orbiting to throw guided bombs at anything that popped up.
>>29882808
The thing is, the F-35 doesn't have to be flying at Mach speed all the time. It actually, you know, SLOW DOWN if it needs to. As the TES article has said, the F-35's loiter time is comparable to that of the A-10 as long as it doesn't use afterburner.
>>29882838
>s and we already established that Circa 90's A-10 was fine. It's post Sniper-Pod Upgrade (2005ish) that it became regulated to high flying bomb taxi and lost any edge it had over other assets.
Are you literally retarded? The A-10C is a huge upgrade over the A model, and simply means that in addition to launching mavs, and providing gun runs like normal, it can also drop precision guided munitions from 20,000ft at any target it wants to. You clearly do not understand any of this at all...
>>29882937
>As the TES article has said, the F-35's loiter time is comparable to that of the A-10 as long as it doesn't use afterburner.
Which article is this?
>>29882662
>A-10's were literally used in high threat environments, on purpose, because they were the only fixed wing that could fly low enough to survive the threats, and return fire
The A-10 would have gotten its shit rekt by a real 'high threat environment' going back to the 80s. Look up the AA complement of the average Soviet Motor-Rifle regiment circa 1985 and tell me with a straight face it'd fly through that.
>>29882943
Did you completely miss this?
>>29875491
>>29875503
>>29875530
>>29875549
>>29875569
>>29882952
Yeah, I was only skimming the thread.
>>29873854
you could have both of them try to take on a couple of helicopters... that would be funny to watch...
>>29882939
"It can drop bombs" isn't a terribly strong argument in favor of a gun craft.
>>29882939
Work on your reading comprehension.
>>29882663
Even using external hardpoints an F-35's RCS is substantially lower than an legacy aircraft.
>>29882981
>gun craft
Have some bad news for you, anon, the A-10's gun was never its main weapon system
>>29883125
Okay. So, what is the objection to the F-35?
>>29883125
So you're saying the A-10 started life without the capability to fire its 'primary armament'?
How about something like the Super Tocano to supplement the F-35 instead of keeping the A-10?
>>29883452
Drones cover the niche pretty much well enough not for them to be needed.
>>29883452
>super memeano
>>29883452
I mean, if you're going with COIN aircraft it's perfectly fine. As long as it can carry a targeting pod and plenty of APKWS, it will do just peachy
>>29874958
>In a few years the ORCA could be a reality
I am ready
>>29883487
But then why even have manned aircraft at all if drones are going to encroach
Plus there were the Bronco's used recently
>>29883493
Top kek
>>29883533
Encroach on COIN operations, which is all the A-10 is good for.
Not a replacement for manned aircraft et al.
>>29883151
Pretty much. In the Gulf it even needed the Mav's FLIR camera to operate at night.
>>29883605
Every fixed wing back then used the mavs camera for night vision when they could. Aerial NVGs were still in their early days and underused. Helo pilots being the main holders of them
>>29873854
The absolute bottom line is that the A-10 is increasingly being seen as a pure COIN aircraft and the Air Force doesn't want to be spending that much money on an asset that won't be useful outside of the COIN context.
In March 2016, the Air Force revealed it had begun studying future CAS aircraft to succeed the A-10 in low-intensity “permissive conflicts” like counterterrorism and regional stability operations, admitting that the F-35 is too expensive to operate in day-to-day roles; everything from low-end AT-6 Wolverine and A-29 Super Tucano turboprops and the Textron AirLand Scorpion as more basic off-the-shelf options to more sophisticated clean-sheet attack aircraft or "AT-X" derivatives of the T-X next-generation trainer as entirely new attack platforms are being considered.
Why we having this argument again.
>>29883846
Nope, Gulf War 1 was the debut of the LANTIRN pod on F-15Es and F-16s.
>>29883885
>Nope
Yes, many aircraft used agms like the mavs and similar, and did use their seekers for visual aid. Weird you would argue against this. Aviation threads really be banned on this board, the amount of ignorance is astounding.
>>29883972
you still had NAV-FLIR on the LANTIRN Nav pod on the F-15E at this time. between something you could shoot off of the jet and could probably only be carried on the wing pylon, and a built-in IR pod that's synced to your HUD... i know which one i'd choose.
>>29882712
And ti still has a lower RCS than an A-10
#rekt
>>29882753
Like >>29882808 says, the F-35 gets its long legs partly by flying at relatively high altitudes and with (like most fast jets) a Mach ~0.9 cruise speed. For CAS, you're flying around down low where there's more drag. That said, the 4th image in that magazine upload did say:
>The A-model has 18,000lb [8,165kg] internal gas, giving me at least a 1.5 hour loiter on a 200-mile [322km] radius - and that's comparable to the A-10 if I am not using afterburner.
Note the "at least". The A-10 (at least according to Wikipedia, I have no idea what load is configured when they state this) has a 1.88 hour loiter on a 250NM (288 miles).
>>29882487
A-10 CPFH = $18k (varies from 17.5 to 18.5)
F-35 CPFH = $30k (technically 29.8)
30/18 = 1.667
It was a ballpark though; should've said ~60-70%.
>>29884377
>i know which one i'd choose.
You literally know nothing about flying any of these aircraft...
>when everyone on /k/ thinks theyre aerospace engineers
>>29882787
>>29882662
Serbia was a lower threat environment than Iraq was, their AD spent most of the war hiding or being actively suppressed.
![1+-+A+Young+Martha+McSally[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/1yEGlj3.jpg "1+-+A+Young+Martha+McSally[1].jpg")
McSally is my hero.
Please keep the A-10 forever.
>>29884936
>when you do not know anything but have to be part of the conversation
It's really sad what the Pentagon is doing. They know they can't get the A-10's all retired, so they've been 'compromising" by "only" having one squadron retired a year.
There's ~300 A-10's in service right now and over 50 are to be retired in the next two years. Eventually the fleet will be whittled down to nothing.
>>29885015
Why is it sad? They've lived out their lives as fairly successful aircraft, it's time to retire them just like the aircraft before them.
New kid on the block.
>>29884993
>when im a 3rd year aerospace engineering student
And everyone is all upset on here cuz they think that what they read in a magazine written by journalists and not engineers is 100% magically accurate.
Bubba ill tell you straight, not even engineers are 100% accurate, although more qualified, its safe to say there are at max 1 or 2 people relatively within that range of qualification to put down numbers on these two completely different planes.
This thread is philosophy. Not fact.
Look, I am a fan of the A-10. It's good at loitering in low-threat environments and providing CAS.
I am NOT a fan of the F-35 because I remember the F-111B mess and the MRCA Tornado mess, and the AMX attack aircraft mess.
HOWEVER, in the long haul, the F-35 is going to provide effective and high quality CAS.
The new Small Diameter Bombs with GPS guidance are the deciding factor. Most CAS doesn't require a gun. SDBs will put ordnance accurately on target from a higher altitude airframe, with all the accuracy and promptness the A-10 delivers today. It's actually not all that high a goal to achieve. The new guidance packages for SDB and the UK Brimstone will be everything we expect from the A-10.
The F-35 has a ton of problems. I initially believe that Lockeed with their Skunk background could deliver over the competing product. The development has been a colossal mess even if you view it in a friendly light.
But similar development messes are COMMON, not the exception (remember the F100 engine furor ? The AGM-65 furor ? The B-1B furor ? Eventually the Full Scale Development Test program bugs get sorted out (though the F-35 is a fucking mess), but it too, ugly as it is, will eventually become a fightable, working system.
>>29885060
The sad part is the slow death their giving it with sly fuckery.
Let the plane live to its 2028 retirement date.
>>29885129
>I haven't finished my education and I have literally no practical experience in my field
>I'm the expert
>>29885146
Where are you getting 2028 from?
>>29885176
Lifespan of the aircraft only extends to that date.
>>29882644
>I have no idea what Russia does in Syria
>>29882211
the pilots should use his eyes and shoot stuff he sees.
low and slow
>>29873854
For starters, the F-35 won't literally go down in flames the first time it encounters an air defense weapon that would be out of place in the Korean War.
>>29874079
Real scenario
The F35 is being repaired and software written so it can launch all of the munitions its supposed to.
The A-10 does sorties for the 10 years until the F35 is ready.
>>29885141
>SDBs will put ordnance accurately on target from a higher altitude airframe
Not just that, but a significantly wider coverage umbrella.
>>29883856
Because day/k/are can't admit that the A-10 isn't shit and that the F-35 might not be the bestest at everything ever.
>>29885169
Its required in the major to have 3 semesters of real world work experience prior to graduation at my university. Ive worked for Safran and Swagelok for 2 of the 3. Just look up info before you decide to try something dumb next time buddy.
>>29885219
Depending on how the F-35 progresses, the A-10 might make it all the way to 2024.
>>29885386
> A-10 isn't shit
>it's current role and implementation can be accomplished by at least 6 other platforms
>These other platforms can provide said mission with faster response times by almost half time required to to be on station and can actually drop ordnance and RTB before A-10 would've even arrived.
It is a good platform for a role that it has been superseded in. It becomes redundant to have a singular air frame that has other assets perform it's current rule better than it can do and also retain multiple other engagement profiles.
>>29885141
>HOWEVER, in the long haul, the F-35 is going to provide effective and high quality CAS.
No it wont, mostly because there won't be enough of them. Look at the US' aircraft procurement. The total number of aircraft to be ordered will be whittled down over time to a fraction of what was requested and what is needed. You're going to end up with maybe one or two hundred airframes split between three branches, and the lion's share will remain F-16/15/18s.
>>29885326
Nah, it'll just eat a bird, instead.
>>29885146
The sad part is retards like you who will not allow the A-10 a graceful retirement because you refuse to let go of your special snowflake.
>>29885479
Instead of doing CAS (aside from maybe the B models) they'll probably be perms-tasked to SEAD, where their electronics and semi-stealthiness is actually useful.
>>29885386
There isn't really anything wrong with the A-10.
But it isn't nearly as special as it is made out to be. Why do we need an aircraft optimized for low-altitude combat in an era where you can drop a bomb from over 10,000 ft and have it land within inches of where you told it to go?
It just makes sense to re-allocate that money towards more versatile fixed-wing aircraft. Leave the "low & slow" stuff for the helicopters.
>>29885507
>USAF admits it doesn't have a viable replacement for the A-10 but wants to axe it anyway
>people want the A-10 to remain in service until a viable replacement is fielded
>somehow we're the assholes
>>29885518
That's seriously retarded. Half the point of the F-35 is that they don't need to have a full SEAD and DEAD campaign completed before they can work inside the enemy's threat rings.
>>29885529
Helicopters are slow, lack loiter time, lack payload, and can be shot down by crazy Hassan and his seventy year old AK. Additionally, you can't drop a bomb from 10k feet for a danger close target.
>>29885544
Magnificent dubs good sir.
Unfortunately the rest of your post is wrong. Just accept the A-10 doesn't really need a direct replacement. There are plenty of different options out there. Let it go.
>>29885578
I love how everybody just pretends that shooting down helicopters is just the easiest thing in the world. How is it that the Russians are able to operate attack choppers with great success in the Syrian conflict but somehow it is taken as fact that US choppers would instantly get shot down?
>>29885564
And in a world where enough F-35s are procured to replace all of the legacy aircraft in service, that makes sense. Back in reality, there will only be a handful and they won't get used for normal missions. The Pentagon already admitted that it won't use them for conventional strike missions because it's too expensive to risk them.
>>29885529
>There isn't really anything wrong with the A-10.
Other than the fact its old and shit and was obsolete when it was brand new
>>29885587
>Just accept the A-10 doesn't really need a direct replacement.
The USAF has stated that it does. Should I listen to The Air Force, or some random anon? Hmm...
>>29885617
Or we could look at the long and stories history of the Soviets/Russians losing helicopters to small arms fire, and the Apaches lost to small arms fire in Iraq.
>>29885672
Maybe a cheap COIN plane like the A-29B Super Taco. But another A-10? Nope. He's dead jim.
>>29885688
Every Apache that got shot down took at least 100 tangos with it. It's just the price of freedom.
>>29885690
I personally wouldn't use a Super Tucano for COIN work either. OV-10X would be my choice. Much wider variety of configurations and armaments.
>>29885723
>tangos
Day/k/are was over hours ago. Go back to fapping over whatever the latest Rainbow Six game they've slapped Clancy's name on is and let the adults talk.
>>29885726
I honestly don't see the purpose of either platform when drones exist. But I think that the Air Force just wants to throw them a bone at this point. If buying a few cheap-ass prop-planes will the trick then why not.
If nothing else, they can give them to Iraq when they're done pretending.
>>29885785
Can a drone carry a 20mm or 30mm cannon? Can it carry five passengers? Drones are not the end-all be-all answer to everything.
>>29885840
I also like the A-29B just because you get a both a trainer and a light attack plane in the same package. I also think it is a little faster than the Bronco.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkgeladdlaI
>>29885652
The Pentagon has no recourse but to buy them and use them. If they don't, America won't have a fighter fleet in 20-30 years. This point has made very clear to Congress. So yeah, bullshit.
>>29885281
>the pilots should use his eyes and shoot stuff he sees.
Some of the dumbest shit yet written in this thread. The F-35 basically gives the pilot cyborg vision, with 360x360 awareness and advanced ID, tag, and track of ground and air targets combined with the ability to make out pickup truck models from 49nmi+ out.
And that ignores the ability to trade coordinates and imagery with JTAC/TACPs, use SA systems like BFT and NETT Warrior to better avoid friendly fire and pick the optimum weapon for support.
>low and slow
Is the way to make a great pork butt or brisket.
>>29885544
>USAF admits it doesn't have a viable replacement for the A-10 but wants to axe it anyway
You're leaving out that its pure, direct-replacement "role" is obsolete and stupid expensive compared to drones, helos, and maybe even a cheap turboprop.
>>29873854
The AC-130 deserves more love. It does everything that the A-10 does, but better.
>>29885977
>You're leaving out that its pure, direct-replacement "role" is obsolete and stupid
the role of direct 'CAS' will never be obsolete, and is the number one most called upon role that aircraft have to fill, you fucknut
>>29886368
CAS? No.
A big, heavy, slow, expensive, highly vulnerable jet that can only operate in secured airspace, while there are several other planes that do the same task without the vulnerabilities?
>>29886368
>the role of direct 'CAS' will never be obsolete, and is the number one most called upon role that aircraft have to fill, you fucknut
The F-16 and F-18 do it more than the A-10.
>>29886507
Hell, the B-1B has deployed way more payload than the A-10.
>>29885785
Turboprop's are actually cheaper to operate than Reapers, and do not require a high bandwidth satellite connection.
>>29886507
>not realizing you're proving the point
>not realizing that without a true dedicated CAS aircraft, every other aircraft has to be used to make due
>>29886581
>Implying they don't do it better
>>29886597
>a B1 flying low and dropping flares in order to try and "scare" the enemy because it has no actual way of attacking them, and it being the only aircraft in the area to respond, is somehow a 'good' thing...
>>29886620
>herp derp the post
Nobody gives a fuck about "fear", it's how effective it is on target, and the B-1B can definitely carry plenty of effective precision munitions.
>>29886507
The reason every aircraft under the sun is called in to perform CAS, is because the number of CAS missions called in outnumbers the actual amount of dedicated aircraft meant to perform that role, hence, having to use any and all aircraft available. But once again, /k/ fails to understand basic math.
>>29886646
>But once again, /k/ fails to understand basic math.
Or because CAS is the simplest mission in the task set and any plane can do it.
>>29886654
What's 'simple' is you and your inability to understand basic logic and numbers.
>>29886620
explain how the b1 cannot attack the enemy
>>29886704
A B&B can certainly attack the enemy, as long as that attack is on a fixed target, from high altitude with no friendly forces in the area, i.e., not a CAS mission, in situations where it has tried to perform true CAS, they end up obliterating blue forces
>>29886748
Wew lad.
Well, show all the times Bones have obliterated blue forces.
Oh wait, you cant.
>>29886693
>Has nothing to back up opinion
>>29886748
[Citation Needed]
>>29886646
>The reason every aircraft under the sun is called in to perform CAS
Except it's not every aircraft under the sun, anon. It's specifically aircraft that are equipped to coordinate with ground controllers and deliver precision air-to-ground ordinance.
The F-15E, the F/A-18, the F-16, the F-35, the B-1B, the MQ-1, the MQ-9, the A-10... fuck, even the AC-130. Turns out there's a lot of planes that can do CAS nowadays. So why do we need the A-10 specifically, again?
Does it have the most up to date avionics? The best comms suite? The optimal overall performance envelope? What is it? Why should the military keep maintaining the A-10, instead of slapping some PGMs on any of half a dozen other qualified airframes, and let any number of qualified aircrews do a mission they're fully trained on and fully capable of doing?
>>29886804
>Except it's not every aircraft under the sun, anon. It's specifically aircraft that are equipped to coordinate with ground controllers and deliver precision air-to-ground ordinance.
....did you actually think you were being smart or proving anything as you typed that?
>>29886784
Washington Times says "hi"
>>29886854
>....did you actually think you were being smart or proving anything as you typed that?
Do you actually have anything to back up your opinions other than >muh erection
>>29886893
That's a newspaper, not a source.
>>29886893
Well by all means, sir retardo, lets see the article.
>>29886925
I'm seeing it right now, what's the problem on your end? Google doesn't exist where you live?
>>29886968
>Makes ridiculous claims
>Does not provide source to back it up
>Durr guggle it lulz
>>29886968
If you're claiming a specific incident occurred, you provide a source for that incident. Just provide the URL. That is, assuming it exists.
>>29886989
>I'm literally claiming B1s have never killed friendlies
Wew boy
You sure about that?
>>29887011
All I asked was that your provide the URL for the specific article you claimed to have opened. You've just outed yourself as a shitty troll.
>>29887021
You're literally claiming Americans haven't been killed by a B1 during night ops, a mission who's casualties were discussed on the Senate floor...
Jesus christ, anon...
