So Wait

>>30766687
>>Still, the question arises: since the F-35A is intended to replace the A-10 for Close Air Support, why does the Air Force need another CAS asset?
Old people and idiots, that's why.
Its the same reason sails were kept on naval vessels long after their obsolescence, the same reason bayonet drill was emphasized for so long, I could go on.

Just drop Viper Strikes out of a Huron and call it a day

Other options are being considered as well according to your article.

>>30766716
Or economics. Overkill is expensive, and its been decades since a true total war. 90% of wars are about trying to end up with more money afterwards than you had before through looting.

Oh I'm sorry, not looting, "developing".

>>30766687
>This is actually happening?

No.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/07/26/deborah-lee-james-air-force-secretary-budget-a10-warthog-ax/87578930/

>>30766687
>Still, the question arises: since the F-35A is intended to replace the A-10 for Close Air Support, why does the Air Force need another CAS asset?

The JSF program was to replace the F/A-18, F-16 and AV-8.

Never the A-10.

>>30766687
We already have a very large number of a far superior craft, the Reaper.

Fuck, this is some fourth generation combat tier stupidity.

>>30769832
Reapers are inferior for COIN.

>>30769856
No, they stay in the air 3x as long and carry more munitions, with haveing better target identification capabilities.

>>30769856
They're basically the best thing imaginable for COIN, what are you talking about

>>30769806
They wanted it to replace the A-10 but everyone knew that was a load of F-35.

>>30766687
1) You don't want to eat up the airframe on your fast attack jets to bomb mudhuts.

2) The majority of CAS missions consists of two 500 lb bombs, which these things can easily hold.

3) These things are fuuuuuuuuucking cheap and even cheaper to operate (AT-6 is < $500 and hour).

4) They can loiter for god damn ever and can operate from anywhere.

I don't know why /k/ hates prop planes but these things are basically PERFECT for CAS in "permissive" environments.

I'm hoping they choose the AT-6 cause, 'MERICA.

>>30770009
What?

>>30770009
Not really.

A-10 doesn't have much of a place anymore.

>>30770019
I'd say drones beat them out a little for COIN.

>>30770019
Because many reasons, but these 2 are the most terrible...

1) the reapers are plentiful and better in every performance metric

2) these prop planes are fucking terrible. The A1 skyraider is far better than the super taco in litterally every metric but speed.

The A1 skyraider is korean vintage.

File: at6b_wolverine.jpg (232KB, 1250x800px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1250x800px

>>30769881
>>30769882
Reapers carry less and cost more to fly than an AT-6B, the advantage they have is the range/loiter time.

>>30770021
Just a retarded A-10 fanboy who thinks he is being funny.

>>30770055

You need to have a drone on station for it to be any use. They are buying these planes for a reason.

I have no idea why you would think these prop planes are terrible. There's nothing wrong with either one of them.

The A1 skyraider hasn't been made since the 50's and the requirement for this contract is that the plane must be off the shelf.

>>30770095
~1,300kg for a couple of hours on station at best, or ~1100kg for up to 35 hours?

Because I'd choose the latter.

>>30770154
>You need to have a drone on station for it to be any use.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Its true of every single aircraft in existence, but at least drones can stay on station for far, far longer than anything else.

>>30770055
>1) the reapers are plentiful and better in every performance metric

The only metric Reapers outperform in is operational range.

>2) these prop planes are fucking terrible. The A1 skyraider is far better than the super taco in litterally every metric but speed.

Which means you are saying Skyraiders are better than Reapers as well.

>>30770169
>The only metric Reapers outperform in is operational range.

And 3x the loiter.

The Beech craft has a whopping 200 kilograms more payload. Wew. The tucano has far less.

>>30770162
>Because I'd choose the latter.

Note this means you paying at least twice as much per flight hour plus needing multiple flight crews for an endurance that isn't necessary in that role.

>>30770169
>Which means you are saying Skyraiders are better than Reapers as well.

No, im saying the skyraider, a plane from 1945, is better than this shit.

For coin you want time on station first and foremost, and the reaper does that better than any manned airframe.

>>30770193
The Reaper has less payload than both aircraft, you are counting the weight of sensors as munitions.

>>30770206
The US already pays for a fleet of superior reapers, they are not going anywhere.

>for an endurance that isn't necessary in that role.

Is this a fucking joke. What do you think COIN entails you fucking moron? Time on station is the SINGLE most important factor in COIN air ops.

>>30766687
>since the F-35A is intended to replace the A-10 for Close Air Support, why does the Air Force need another CAS asset?

Because it costs a fucking fortune to use a multi-role 5th gen aircraft to blow up mudhuts in a theater of operations where the closest thing to AA is an old Kord machinegun.

>>30770225
Are you implying the fucking super tucano will do coin ops 500 feet off the ground using the mk 1 eyeball to find those pesky terrorists?

why not just make large turbo prop drones removes the possibility of losing pilots while achieving the same goal. No reason to have a pilot to do CAS drones do it just as well this seems like some old fuds waving their dicks around

>>30766687
Boy howdy it sure is a good thing we have a trillion dollar stealth aircraft to drop millions of dollars worth of ordinance on houses made out of dirt there's absolutely no way we could do this any better

>>30769882
>They're basically the best thing imaginable for COIN, what are you talking about
>imaginable
yes. that is correct. However, as the USAF quickly found out, RC aircraft is shit against anyone with more than a 2digit avg IQ. See the drone that was hijacked and safely landed by Iran.

They are going prop plane human-operator, because that is the most efficient for its intended purpose, and using a commerical line saves them mo money to fund farce-corps to line their trust-fund bankaccounts with taxpayer money.

>>30770285
>Lets have someone across the world kill someone! Its totally not a bad idea, guys!
>horrible 4-5 seconds of delay between relaying to a relay station and your console, then 4-5 seconds back
>when pilots needs to know what happening right then

Yea, ok buddy.

>>30770263
Look at the plane in >>30770095 and tell me what you see under its belly.

>>30770352
not sure where you get the 4-5 sec delay I frequently play games on South east asia servers with 300 miliseconds delay. Assuming the military has their own dedicated personal communication satellite systems I don't see them having issues with lag. Give me hard evidence.

>>30770352
>lag meme

Reaper guy already disproved this many times.

>>30770350
>hyjack meme

Worse than the lag meme, everyone disproved this.

>>30770233
No one said Reapers are going anywhere, that doesn't change that they are still excessively expensive compared to an AT-6 for COIN work.

>>30770368
Are you now saying the sensor ball is somehow weightless on the meme prop planes?

>>30770374
My sipr net access blew ass any time I wasn't in garrison

>>30770387
>Worse than the lag meme, everyone disproved this.
I bet you think the whole "Russian antenna airplane disabling a whole destroyer just with flying by" was just a meme too, dont you?

>>30770397
They are expensive because they are, performance wise, far superior.

>>30770374
There's roughly 250ms ping between ground based stations and satellites. The 300ms lag you're subjected to is achieved through cable communications.

http://www.satsig.net/latency.htm

>>30770374
You're an idiot. Satellite lag is always a couple of light seconds bare minimum due to distances traveled.

>>30770374
Playing a game takes a fraction of the bandwidth that a high definition video stream does, and you are presumably on a land line.

>>30770409
The one where half the crew resigned from the navy immediately?

Yeah, 100% believeable.

>>30770420
>a couple of light seconds
A unit of distance but ok

>>30770402
Individual computers are not given the same priority as drones. IT would be logical given a drones mission that they would give it a much higher bandwidth allocation then lets say the desktop computer used for handling text documents and the occasional photo and video.

>>30770410
And by performance wise, you mean overall loiter time.

>>30770450
Payload and loiter, yes.

Thats what coin is.

>>30770416
HOWEVER, comms lag can be decreased by having the drone operators and their comms equipment at the AO, in such case standard radio-link takes over since you don't have to bounce the signal on a satellite in order a place on the far side of the Globe.

What is the possibility of jamming a drone, as was seen when Iran captured one? If the Iranians can do it, I don't see why the Chinks or Russians can't do it. One positive of a manned aircraft is it can't be jammed, well, not the same way.

>>30770387
Didn't Reaperguy also say that flying a drone was equivalent to looking at the world around it through a straw?

>>30770463
Reapers have only ~3/4 the payload of an AT-6.

>>30770476
>as was seen when Iran captured one

Anon...

>>30770476
>What is the possibility of jamming a drone,
you can jam anything with a big enough heatsink and high enough power transmitter. Just dont expect anything else to be living around the area because RF burn is a bitch.

>>30770503
>The iranians had it and we didn't give it to them
Explain it to me then General Anon

>>30770401
Are you trying to assert that Reapers can carry munitions in its sensor bay?

>>30770446
Latency != bandwidth.

>>30770521
he cant, because everything US media says is truth 110% of the time, and RT and any other non-joo controlled/nonstate-backed media outlets are all fictional satire sites.

>>30766716
>Old people and idiots, that's why.
Ah yes because I can tell from here you have a wealth of knowledge and experience dealing with such matters. Tell me more, oh great military strategy master!

>>30770570
Yeah man, old people only have decades of military experience. They haven't even played Battlefield. Faggots.

>>30770521
Well there is this thing called gravity.

Lose an engine, thus power, and this amazing thing called gravity takes over and it will crash.

Being that the drone lost power, it could not send telemetry back, so it attempted to autopilot back to its base. The funny thing about auto pilot is it keeps the pane from loseing lift. So when it crashed in a flat desert, it stayed (mostly) intact.

Oh! Oh! Here comes the daily AT-6 circle jerk! Everyone whip out your dicks for the trainer with hardpoints!

>>30770524
Are you trying to assert the AT-6 Sensor bay is weightless AND does not take up a pylon?

>>30770477
Yup, there's a great war college article on why drones aren't for everything.

>>30770635
Drones are not for everything.

But for coin, they are nearly tailor made. They have everything you want in abundance.

>>30770587
US drones = UNDEADABLE

Is it really hard to believe a foreign government was able to interrupt whatever signal is telling the drone where to go? Or even failing that, that the Russians who are more adept at cyber warfare than Iran might be able to do something?

>>30770664
>US drones = undeadable

No anon, i never argued this.

>Is it really hard to believe a foreign government was able to interrupt whatever signal is telling the drone where to go?

That they hacked US military sat encryption, in real time, and was able to communicate with a drone, figure out its control scheme on the fly, both input and output, and land it in the middle of nowhere?

Yes anon, i find it far, far probable that the drones engine failed.

>>30770730
Maybe they just tried to down it and got lucky.

>>30770770
You dont do what i described and "get lucky" i didnt even mention they did this while the plane was going about 200-300mph or so, so the operation would have had to been airborne too.

No, iran did get lucky, they got damn lucky the engine failed.

>>30770463
not to mention avionics and observation equipment

>>30770730
>Yes anon, i find it far, far probable that the drones engine failed.

This, we're talking about Iran here, not a Tom Clancy novel

>>30770464
Yes, that is correct. My bad. Overlooked this one detail.

>>30770532
Yes, that is correct. My bad. Overlooked this one detail.