What does /k/ think about this?

>CV22
Wait, since when are the marines fighting Isis? I thought we were just bombing them.

>not counting munitions costs
>not counting munitions effectiveness

It's shit.

>inb4 A-10fags don't realize the massive expense and limited effectiveness of the GAU-8 and start pointing to this chart

>>30738443
Wait a few hours until nighttime /k/

>>30738443
The LRSB cant come fast enough. Its time to put the old workhorses to bed. Hell, the A-10 vs MQ-9 shows just how badly the A-10 needs to be put to pasture. The MQ-9 does the A-10s job much, much better, and cheaper too.

>>30738458
>a few
It's 5 AM m8

>>30738455
You know, it can carry other weapons.

>>30738476
Its nearly 7am you fucking lier. GAWD.

>beliving goverment timezone lies

Litterally bootlicking.

>>30738480
I'm well aware, but everyone else can carry those weapons better.

MQ-9 carries 500lb bombs far more cheaply
F-16 carries 500lb/2000lb/Mavericks there far faster and has far better targeting sensors, plus flies above MANPADS and AAA

>>30738508
Makes sense, even the airforce wants to retire it. People just like the A-10

>>30738443
That the A-10 cost almost as much to operate as a Falcon or a Hornet with far less capability.
The A-10 is a pretty useless tier between drones and light weight multi-role fighters.

OP here, so the standout thing to me about this wasn't the A-10 versus anything else, it was the OV-10 versus the UAVs.

>>30738458
Why's that?

>>30738534
Look, I get that it's cool, but so was the F-14. Let it stay cool by retiring it before it loses its charm.

On a more serious note: the Army needs to lose the chip on its shoulder where it thinks that the AF doesn't give a shit about supporting them. As a guy who did support for tac fighters, we care a whole fucking lot about air to mud. There's no stigma against dropping bombs on Hadji in the modern AF, we realize full well that it's a vital component to winning the fight--and saving a team of infantry who were in a bad TIC is a huge deal to our pilots.

And, surprise surprise, the Army doesn't actually know shit about what's best for delivering CAS. They buy into the BRRRT meme and "muh psychological scurriness" instead of realizing that the B-1 is responsible for the majority of dead ragheads downrange, and that the A-10's numbers are pathetic in comparison. The A-10's gun is terrible compared to GP bombs, and rapidly+violently killing your enemies works much better at ensuring a psychological victory than making a non-explosive sound that maybe kills one or two.

The F-35 won't be cheaper than the MQ-9 by any shot but for CAS it's going to be amazing. All the speed of the F-16 and a shitload of gas to give it lots of time on station, plus amazing targeting sensors to put bombs right the fuck where they're needed to support the Army. Yet all you hear from the Army about it is that "the AF spends all teh DOD monies on fighters that they never gonna use wut about teh CAS wut about more monies for Army also A-10 saved me downrange once keep dat". Seriously guys, we know our job better than you (it's not like we're trying to tell the Army that its tanks cost too much and don't support the AF mission of protecting an airbase) and we care about making sure you all come home.

So please quit shilling Congress for the A-10, it needs to fucking retire already.

>>30738454
I don't know exactly which American branch or whatever have been fighting ISIS, but American soldiers have been taking them on. I've seen it in the news here, but not America, so they don't generally name the specific people involved.

It seems to be restricted to opportunistic attacks though, like when they get info that a gathering of leaders are going to be wherever.

>>30738454
Spec ops community loves the shit out of the V-22

>>30738673
Why?

>>30738981
Different anon here, but probably because of its speed - need an evac or QRF? It'll arrive twice as fast.

>>30738981
Speed and range of a plane, able to put your ass on an X like a helicopter. Whats not to like?

>Reaper
>$50k/hour

get your shit together Skynet

Osprey is shit

>>30739096
Reaper is MQ-9, RQ-4 is the Global Hawk (airliner sized, twice the endurance, far bigger recon payload)

File: 10918284_834766513236995_1131247332_o~01.png (357KB, 920x556px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 920x556px

That chart doesn't even have the plane doing most of the wrecking at night, spooky a shit.

>>30739229
Yes it does, AC-130U @ $45,986/hr

>>30739275
AC-130W is doing most of the work.

>>30739136
shit your right
still, put some weapons on it Skynet

>>30738455
Just point out the Bronco.

>>30739280
. . .

Two letters probably isn't going to make much of a difference to the fuel efficiency.

>>30739532
Way more goes into those numbers than just fuel costs, maintenance costs are also a huge factor.
I fix gunships, and spookies are the biggest pieces of shit I've ever worked on.
It also has a ton of proprietary hardware that costs a lot to maintain. They take forever to boot software, and can't maintain any kind of mechanical reliability.

>>30739595
Compared to the AC-130W Stinger though? The Spooky II may have more guns, but the Stinger still carries a 30mm. Both also use the same engines (they're both Herc H-model derivatives).

>>30739753
There is still the issue with the sheer amount of proprietary hardware used on the spooky.
The stinger uses mostly commercial equipment that can be found on other platforms, which brings cost way down.
The 30mm is just a modified bushmaster, same one found elsewhere in the military.
Also the spooky only has one more gun, the 105mm modded stinger just got their flight releases.

>>30738454
CV-22s have been deployed ever since the Jordanian pilot incident. They are there primarily for CSAR.