Like anything?
Why not use the A-10 and drones like always?
>>68266227
they are older designs and less specialized, the A-10 is a fighter bomber which means it is a half ass fighter and a half ass bomber. the B-2 is a specialized stealth bomber and is far more capable of doing its job than the A-10. I still do love the look of the A-10 though 10/10 super aesthetic
>>68266593
>, the A-10 is a fighter bomber which means it is a half ass fighter and a half ass bomber
So how many A-10s has ISIS shot down?
>>68266593
>the B-2 is a specialized stealth bomber and is far more capable of doing its job than the A-10.
So how is the B-2 required in a fight against ISIS? Is it the workhorse of the US airforce in Syria and Iraq and Libya?
>>68266227
Why can't the world just disarm and admit we won?
>>68266803
If you're going to pay to fly the thing to keep the crew trained and proficient, might as well use it bomb actual targets instead of desert in Nevada.
>>68267226
It costs 12 times more to kill ISIS bugs with an B-2 than an A-10.
You can kill 12000 ISIS bugs for the price of killing 1000 ISIS bugs. Why not opt for the 12000?
>muh isis
barely relevant, those planes were designed to face real armies
Aren't they using broncos against isis anyway?
>>68266803
A-10s are capable of taking a direct hit up to 23mm explosive projectiles. Of course they wouldn't be able to shoot it down.
>>68268051
Hard too suicide bomb a military plane.
>>68266863
this. just enjoy the pax americana already stop being so tsundre
A-10 is great at slowly cruising above the battlefield picking off hadjis on camels, but is at a disadvantage when an enemy airforce, IADS or even MANPADS are present.
Different tools for different jobs.
>>68268051
>A-10s are capable of taking a direct hit up to 23mm explosive projectiles. Of course they wouldn't be able to shoot it down.
So why the hell is the military phasing them out?
>>68266593
>the A-10 is a half-assed fighter-bomber
M8, the A10 is a dedicated ground attack plane built for brute force with a straightforward simplicity that is refreshing for a modern western military.
>>68267341
Because why not? They have to fly it and drop ordinance to train anyways, might as well use it on some real targets instead of ones Nevada. And they need to keep pilots trained in the event that we do need a very sneaky aircraft to penetrate another country's air defense network and bomb critical targets. A-10s are only useful when US has total air control, and even then it's debatable whether other planes serve the purpose just as well. And as far as I know we don't have any drones as stealthy with the bomb carrying capacity of a B2, and even if we did it has the potential for its signal to be interrupted once in another country's border.
I know you guys think militaries are just for training exercises and it's totally fine replacing your MG's with broomsticks, but some people realize the world isn't always going to be peace and love and happiness between all the major powers.
>>68268736
>A-10 is great at slowly cruising above the battlefield picking off hadjis on camels, but is at a disadvantage when an enemy airforce, IADS or even MANPADS are present.
What "enemy airforce"? There is no such thing anywhere in this world. No ... such... thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvIJvPj_pjE
You need the BRRRRRRRTTT and nothing else.
>>68268927
Because Lockheed Martin wants to the government to buy it's new, more expensive multi-role jet.
>>68268927
Not an expert and could be wrong but:
>literally lost the blueprints and cant make more
>holding back "progress" i.e. money-making military industry
>theyre very old?
>>68269004
>And they need to keep pilots trained in the event that we do need a very sneaky aircraft to penetrate another country's air defense network and bomb critical targets.
Yeah, because that is every going to be needed.
Might as well train for the zombie apocalypse and an alien invasion.
>>68269093
>>68269340
Some unruly islamokebabists do have fighters and AA systems, you know.
You never know when they'll decide to do something silly and invite liberation upon themselves.
>>68268927
>So why the hell is the military phasing them out?
Because by 2022 they will be 50 years old, maybe?
It's not like they are phasing them out right now, there are no plans until 2022 and then it will be a gradual thing. I remember reading they will still be used even by 2025.
>>68269709
kek
>>68269340
You're right. Disarming after the first World War was such a good idea because another one could never happen again. Thank you for that delightful input. Cuckmoney to the rescue again guys.
>>68268927
MANPADS.
The idea is you can still do CAS from thousands of feet in the air (and reduced radar cross-section) without being exposed to russian anti air tech given to muzzies.
>>68269858
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/win89/hurley.html
Luckily they're usually not very good at using them though, so there's that.
>>68266227
We used them more before we had drones
>>68266227
vell b-2 is ztill more uzeful than yor precius f-18 or f-16
>>68268051
>Muh A-10 Flying Tank
Fuck off, the cockpit is resistant to 30mm cannonfire but it can get shot down like any other plane. Just because you hear stories about it being shot up an successfully landing doesn't mean its the norm. No doubt the A-10 is more robust, its a fucking ground attacker, but any dedicated AA system would tear it to ribbons without issue. Planes don't have armor aside from the cockpit, and a cannon throwing 30mm at 90 rounds a second would hatefuck an A-10. CAS is dead, there is no reason to fly low and slow when you have smart bombs with a hit probability of 10 feet.
>>68271996
>>68271996
>there is no reason to fly low and slow when you have smart bombs with a hit probability of 10 feet.
one word: costs
If it is cheaper to fly low and slow, then it should be done, especially if we know that the risk to the pilot are extremely low (so low, not a single A-10 has been shot down by ISIS ever).
>>68267422
They want to. My god, I get a little chubby just from thinking about blasting shitskins from a bronco.
>>68269093
>>68268927
The BRRRTT gun couldn't even reliably penetrate the MBTs it was supposed to be fighting and is a massive liability if the US doesn't have complete air superiority.
This thread is now BRRRT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvIJvPj_pjE
>BRRRT
>BRRRT
>BRRRT
>>68274168
Not been shot down yet German friend.
But imagine explaining to that airman's family that he was killed over trying to keep costs low. Do you really want to bear the responsibility of sending volunteers to fight without the best equipment just to save some money that liberals will spend on something else?
>>68266227
A-10's and drones get shot down though.
>>68266593
>a-10 and b-2 have the same role
What
A-10 is a close air support aircraft
Which means its task is to wreck enemy armour and infantry in order to help ground troops
B-2 is a strategic bomber
Its role is to bomb bridges,specific buildings,and even deliver a nuke.
B-2 cant be used for close air support
A-10 cant be used for bombing strategic positions
>>68266227
What kind of retards compare a plane designed for close air support to a strategic nuclear bomber?
The A-10, which was designed to hammer Russian armored columns in the Fulda Gap, would get absolutely shredded by any semi-modern integrated air defense system, so it can't even perform its primary function anymore (not to mention the BRRRTTTT gun is useless against modern armor).
It was lucky to get a new lease on life during the War on Terror as a cheapish close air support weapon against infantry and light targets but that's about all it can do.
>>68266803
>Isis
Isis can't take down any planes, A-10, B2 or otherwise.
Poor sand niggers with weapons from the 1970s isn't a good test of a war planes effectiveness.
>>68276585
Correct. Use the right tool for the job. There aren't many 'swiss army knives' of aerial warfare.
>YF35
Nope.
>>68266227
It is not designed to be a combat plane, it's a tactical nuclear deterrent.
>>68274168
Costs aren't a concern. We have the 2nd largest GDP in the world and we spend 16% of our budget on the military. If needed, we could siphon some more from the 60% that makes up our social programs/medicare. Our military is anything but efficient, but we can afford it. It's the same reason why we use turbine engines in our tanks, why we have shit like the F-22, B-2, F-35, and Zumwalt-class destroyers. Our procurement is complete shit thanks to the thr military-industrial complex, but being the nation that would be the instigator/defender if WW3 would happen, our military must be prepared for a war against actual countries more than anything. And on a sidenote, pilots usually are more valuable than the planes they fly.
>>68268927
Lockheed Martin, corruption, Obama wanting to further weaken the military. This is a one stone many birds situation.
>>68277658
Where did i mention YF35?
>>68266227
Cuz it looks cool as fuck.
>>68278956
You didn't....just riffing.
>>68277910
>Our military is anything but efficient, but we can afford it. It's the same reason why we use turbine engines in our tanks
Good goyim
>>68269224
This. It's really shameful how openly the private sector steals from the taxpayers. Inferior products that take forever and never really work is the preferred path to riches in America these days.
>>68266227
I remember from the millitary here in Norway that departments needs to use up the allocated budget so they can get the same or more money in the next budget.
That is why they might use it instead of something else. And that is also why America needs to be in war all the time, so vote Hillary. Trump won't start wars.
My father insists you guys spend like you do on the military because it keeps a lot of people employed. While I agree that it keeps a certain amount of engineers and R&D specialists employed, and of course Lockheed execs etc. lining their pockets, he seems to think there are factories all over the US churning out rifles or and tanks.
Really I just see a lot of waste, a lot of corruption and plenty of areas that could be made more efficient without reducing the overall effectiveness.
>>68282777
Being a superpower ain't cheap.
There's certainly some truth to a lot of what you said, but America underwrites the defense of most Western countries, and for good reason.
No offense, but if the North Koreans pour across the DMZ, the Russians move into Estonia, or the Chinese seize the Senkakus or Taiwan it won't be the Canadians or Swedes that will be airlifting brigade combat teams and maneuvering carrier battle groups into position.
Much of what we spend on our military is actually just personnel costs.
>>68266227
REMINDER
Trump says the military will get the right weapons, not the military industrial complex shill shit.
TRUMP CONFIRMED FOR LOVING BASED A-10
MAKE AMERICA BRRRRRRRRT AGAIN!
>>68267422
Afghanistan is getting Super Tucanos, mi amore.
>>68281771
>I remember from the millitary here in Norway that departments needs to use up the allocated budget so they can get the same or more money in the next budget.
Yes, that's the case for every single government enterprise. If they can't justify their budget, it gets reduced. Therefore government institutions are encouraged to spend and invest more than they really need, whether it's on diversity training programs, ineffective infrastructural works or top of the line jet fighters.
>>68266593
Fag the a-10 is a tank destroyer.
What is the point in fighters?
If you don't go for a light aircraft design, you can:
>mount a point defence turret to protect yourself from missiles
>make the point defence turret into a pseudo-railgun that sprays obscene amounts of lead shot at stupidly high velocity, so that if a fighter comes you just spray it and its missiles down at long range
Also, does anyone know if it's a viable design for a laser to charge it up by spinning a weight at extremely high speed, then place that weight in a magnetic field to create current, with that magnetic field powered by said current so very suddenly all the weight's spinning turns into current and the flash of power can give a nice chunky blast of deadly laser?
I love the A-10. Used to have a steel toy model as a kid.
BRRRRRRRTT
>>68283919
I just feel that spending more than the next 8 nations combined is a bit excessive (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/13/barack-obama/obama-us-spends-more-military-next-8-nations-combi/).
After all, 3 of those are allies (France, UK, Germany). You're spending 3 times as much as China, the next highest military budget. You could probably fight the entire world if you were on a defensive footing.
I know that sounds great and all, but you also are spiraling into debt faster than its reasonable to think about. Spending that much on military only to have you collapse due to external debt and economic issues tied to it is a bit depressing.
I just want America to be around for longer. I don't think you need that kind of spending to do it.
>>68285035
comparing the us economy to shitty france, uk and cuckmany
>how would other countries collect the debt?
Imagine you are an infantryman taking fire from concealed positions, you know the direction that fire is coming from so you call in Air support.
An A-10 is on station ready to go it comes flying in overhead the enemy knows what is about to happen the soldiers around you are watching in anticipation. You hear cries of snackbar snackbar snackbar! suddenly their position erupts into an inferno of fire and molten steel.
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTT
Everyone starts going crazy you can hear the chant of USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA.
Putin withdraws his troops from the Ukraine, China stops eating doge, Europe pledges allegiance to the flag of those United States of America and Australians cease all shitposting. Then the pilot comes in low looks you straight in the eye and salutes then flies off into the sun accompanied by an American Bald eagle.
Meanwhile an F-35 is sitting on the tarmac it needs another trillion dollars worth of funding before it can refueled.
Choose wisely America.
>>68282777
Dad works for Boeing here in the midwest. youd be surprised how many jobs are supported by our defense spending.
also, he started off at Rockwell building the worlds greatest strategic bomber, the Lancer. military spending is the reason i was able to live my awesome middle class life
>>68286004
They don't collect the debt. They stop giving you money, they stop buying your shit, they stop selling you their shit. Economic warfare.
The Saudis by themselves have rolled the financial crisis and drawn it out another 2 years. Maybe 3 unless they stop selling oil as cheap as they are.
The day will come when everyone will have to base what they can afford on what they actually take in, instead of operating on a deficit indefinitely.
>>68285035
US military spending is sub 20% of the national budget. Iirc it's roughly 15% right now. What's digging us into debt is our bloated social programs that make up 80% of federal spending, not the military.
>>68286431
>B-1B
>the worlds greatest strategic bomber
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here
>>68286726
>The day will come when everyone will have to base what they can afford on what they actually take in, instead of operating on a deficit indefinitely.
Will they? Governments don't die. As long as they can afford the interest payments, they can keep running deficits all they want.
>Why not use the A-10 and drones like always?
A-10 is basically the Air Force's old truck.
Not going to win any race and doesn't go very far on a tank of gas but its easy to fix and hauls a lot of shit.
The wife wants to swap it out for a minivan.
>>68282777
The two biggest employers in my area are a shipyard that builds for the navy and coast guard, and a company that builds Hmmvs and MRAPs.
>>68285035
China conceals much of it's budget, has really only one, maybe two regions to deal with in any military sense, and proportionally is able to spend more than America on actual military equipment and research and development.
France and Britain have capable forces but don't have much ability to deploy more than an aircraft carrier and a full division in the event of a crisis. Germany is a shadow of it's former self militarily. America does get into many retarded wars, but we do have legitimate and necessary interests in many parts of the world, and if we don't do it no one else will.
The real problem with our budget is the uncontrolled growth in entitlement spending and social security.
>>68266227
Unlimited range. B2 pilots sleep in their own beds stateside during wartime.
>>68288456
Ehhhh, I wouldn't go that far. A pilot for a strategic nuclear bomber isn't sleeping any further than the nearest barracks.
>>68288456
>would literally be cheaper to build a house on the front lines than to fly back to the states once
>>68287089
prove me wrong
>worlds fastest bomber
>largest payload in the US air force
>holds just about every record in speed, climb and altitude
>one of the most, if not THE most advanced ground terrian radars in existance
When it comes to response time, nothing can start up and deliver a payload faster than a B1 can.
I know I am biased here, but not that much.
>>68288730
FLAW: Clinton had the PALs removed in 1994 and it is no longer capable of delivering nukes.
The B-2 offers a longer range and superior stealth capabilities than those other jets, there are also 21 of them which aren't used as often as those other jets.
>>68268927
They aren't.
>being happy that your country pumps so much money into tech and military hardware that hardly ever sees the light of day
I'm not happy about my country's basically non-existent military but you guys take it to the extreme
>>68289278
Like that's something a couldn't fix in 30 minutes with a craftsman toolkit and Google.
>>68289732
You're god damn right we do.
>>68266227
The B2 is a stealth bomber faggot, no radar signature.
>>68290530
Sounds good and all in times of war or the heightened chance of war, but are people actually happy with the spending that goes into the military there?
>>68290448
And then you have to train the crew how to use it and how to LABS a B61.
>>68290788
Russia is planning something. Better safe than sorry. I don't care if it kills ever last American but I'll be damned if Russia get Estonia!
>>68266227
>>68266227
Because how else is the US going to supply the XCOM project with funds?
This conversation is stupid, what happens with the military is that weapon manufacturers pay lobbyists to grease politicians palms. Then they overload the the plane, tank or whatever with a bunch of shit it don't need to make the price more expensive. What happened with F-35 and phantom etc etc. It's a tremendous waste of resources and the damn things don't work anyway. Trump is right about making are military MUCH stronger for MUCH cheaper. Would not be difficult to do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HrKnF0dwqQ
Wow looks like /pol/ never took Intro to IR at any point. The B-2 makes the American nuclear threat credible, and until another country finds a way to reliably stop the B-2, and the submarine fleet, and the ICBM's, and any other payload method the run near certain risk of being annihilated.
The B-2 is among the most important weapons in the US arsenal, it's a very major cog in the machine that keeps the world from ending.
>>68291136
>>68291040
Imagining the the Japanese using this to kamikaze while playing anime music
>>68285035
We're going to need to be able to take on the world when we default on our debt and go full nationalism.
>>68286404
>Putin withdraws his troops from the Ukraine, China stops eating doge, Europe pledges allegiance to the flag of those United States of America and Australians cease all shitposting. Then the pilot comes in low looks you straight in the eye and salutes then flies off into the sun accompanied by an American Bald eagle.
>>68292288
The honest redpill truth is we're aren't going to default at all
What do you think our currency is backed by? Debt? Meh, it's backed by the full BRRRZZZT of the USA.
Might makes right my friend.
