Guess who's back

I am fully erect.

File: lol.png (18KB, 647x100px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 647x100px

>>31096495

lol

Why do they even keep trying? They get told no every time.

>>31096601
/thread

>we don't even know what the A-10 is supposed to do in today's combat environment
>that means A-10 can't be replaced

>F-22
>F-35
>KC-46
>B-21
>We need to scrap the A-10 to save money guys.

Yeah, okay.

>>31096735
>having expensive things means you can't save money by getting rid of useless things

>>31096735

>F-22
>F-35
>KC-46
>B-21
>Wow, all this stuff is really expensive, but vital to our ability to perform missions in the future. We're gonna have to save money somehow to afford all this. We need to scrap the A-10 to save money guys.

Are brrtfags the BBfags of the air? Sure, GAU-8s and 16-inch guns are pretty cool but at the end of the day they're just obsolete.

>>31096495
How long until new production A-10's? The airframes are getting old.

>>31097013

Infinity long, because Fairchild Republic doesn't exist anymore and the tooling for the air frames has been scrapped.

>>31096840
Yes. I love to derail their threads and get them deleted by glider posting. On that note, why not fit glider wings to miniguns?

>>31096495
They just need to store the existing A-10s and force tge use of F35s.

Kinda like forcing your dad to get a new car because his old one barely works and has 400k miles.
They will resist at first, but then slowly realize their old car was shit.

>>31096495
GAO doesn't make decisions.

>>31097968
The only plane whose tooling has been scrapped is the F-14 because of Iran.

File: kube.jpg (49KB, 350x323px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 350x323px

>>31096495
Well fuck it now I'm just convinced a big enough gun can solve everything.

>>31097968
Why do they scrap tooling? The military should buy it for scrap price and put the tools in a warehouse. This is some kind of shenanigans isn't it?

>>31099468

Ostensibly that kind of stuff is destroyed for ITAR reasons.

>>31096495
The reason for getting rid of the A-10 isn't budget or because the F-35 can do its job just as well or better than the A-10. The reason the A-10 is being retired is that the United States no longer has the industrial capacity to maintain it.

The factories that once made the A-10 have long since been shut down, so there are no new stockpiles of spare parts. And the Air Force cannot simply make a contract for supplying the A-10 because the machines that made those parts have already been scrapped. Boeing and Lockheed would never bother to pick up the parts line because they'd lose money on it.

The A-10's electronics hardware is ancient, and upgrading it means the Air Force would be starting a totally new software development project on par with that for the F-22 and F-35 that wouldn't use the same codebase or hardware. It's just throwing good money after bad.

Finally, the A-10's ground attack role can be fulfilled much more cheaply by modified Texans or F-35s. The A-10's main gun was built for killing tanks. Guess what: nobody we'll ever fight a war with ever again has tanks that can't be defeated by a missile launched from an F-35 or Texan II. The gun is pointless, adds another logistics chain to already complex Air Force operations, and should be banned as a WMD under the Geneva Conventions.

>>31096731
That's not what's being said. What the GAO is saying is that the Air Force is simply saying that ground attack operations can be performed by other planes, but that the Air Force hasn't actually decided what constitutes a ground attack operation, what capabilities are necessary to successfully carry out ground attacks, and what ground attack aircraft should be able to do. So while the A-10 is widely acknowledged as the quintessential ground attack plane, the Air Force hasn't defined why it's so good and so it has no idea what would be a good replacement.

>>31099567
What is the difference? They are already making new wings with all the stuff that goes in them. They did it because they have the old blueprints and made 3D models.

>>31098639
Oh yeah, let's just get all the tooling for those F-5s the marines use because we don't destroy our tooling.

File: Cp1hfioWEAAof3a.jpg (71KB, 917x762px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 917x762px

>>31096495

>Air Force is wearing these sweet “Legacy Series Sharktooth” helmets Sept. 10 vs. Georgia State

>>31100020
>>31100000

File: 1452927784564.png (906KB, 1118x1004px) Image search: [Google]

906KB, 1118x1004px

>>31099740
>o while the A-10 is widely acknowledged as the quintessential ground attack plane
except multi roles and strategic bombers have been providing more CAS than the Warthog in every single theater of operation, for the last few decades.


It makes me sad that people who literally haven't flown a plane or received any training in aerial combat/aeronautics are trying to legislate a cold war relic back above water, for no fucking reason other than THE GUN SOUNDS COOL

>>31099709
Why should it be banned?

>>31100147
I think he means because of the DU, but that's just about the worst argument you could make against the A-10.

1) DU muh war crimes is pretty much a made-up fantasy to bash the US with in the first place.

2) We're not using DU ammo these days to begin with; we're using straight HEI. GAU-8 DU is only really useful against IFVs, which can be dealt with using bombs or missiles from altitude. For gun runs against infantry concentrations, DU is pretty much worthless.

There are far, far better arguments against the A-10, some of which he included earlier in his post.

Either that, or, more likely, he was jesting about the GAU-8 because of its fear factor against infantry.

>>31100099
search and destroy, then loiter until dry

Why do so many lower-level officers in the Army, Marine Corps, and the Air Force think the A10 is good?

File: 076 - fOAia0w.jpg (303KB, 3096x2002px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 3096x2002px

>>31100295
did someone say loiter?

>>31100300
Literally only because it looks cool doing gun runs. Most CAS is done by bomb and literally every other plane in the USAF's inventory can do the job better than the A-10.

>>31100300
>Why do so many lower-level officers in the Army, Marine Corps, and the Air Force think the A10 is good?
because all the high speed low drag tight pants tight groupings guys are calling in the cool shit and they can't talk about it

>>31100099

And I suppose you have training in these then?
>>31098639
SR-71s was scrapped as well.


I'm not even a proponent of the A10 but fuck is this the most autistic topic that comes up on /k/.

>>31100311
I know exactly why I have this bone

>>31100325
>>31100320
Bombs are less accurate and have greater potential for collateral damage.

Missiles cost more per use than one strafing run by the A10.

There's also the morale effect.

File: 102 - EXYtToH.jpg (40KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 1024x682px

>>31100372


>>31100380
modern bombs have a lower CEP than the GAU-8.

do you have any idea how cheap it is to turn a dumb bomb into a smart bomb as compared to fully loading a GAU-8 magazine for the same job?

>there's also the morale effect
>enemies surviving = good
warthog fanboy logic, folks

I'd post that webm of the ISIS hill being removed from existence with a multiple JDAM strike, but this B-1R needs to be satisfied.

File: 1372926557918.jpg (467KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

467KB, 1920x1080px

>>31100418

File: 142 - 3McRywB.jpg (569KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

569KB, 1920x1200px

>>31100434

File: 143 - RFqWzC6.jpg (41KB, 613x471px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 613x471px

>>31100458

File: 164 - oXwlwnp.jpg (296KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1280x1024px

>>31100464

File: 204 - zDyWFIP.jpg (146KB, 2100x1400px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 2100x1400px

>>31100473

>>31096713
The USAF can't keep the A-10s operational forever

>>31100418
your a fucking nigger

File: damage control.jpg (137KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 650x650px

>>31100494

>>31099709
just make the shit to make the shit to make A-10s.

what are you a fucking retard, I just saved the economy and America, go fuck yourself.

Why don't we make out China to be the big bad guy of the 21st century already and that justifies Cold War levels of spending for all the mad shit everyone wants?

File: One-Does-Not-Simply[1].jpg (30KB, 568x335px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 568x335px

>>31100520
>just make the shit to make the shit to make A-10s.

>>31100494
Maybe he is one, maybe he isn't. But, if he were one?

He'd be one that's right. The A-10 came up more than once already, and having done the math or seen it done in those threads? It's cheaper to go converting dumb bombs into JDAMs, especially now there's the laser designated models out. To give some perspective why, the rounds cost more than a hundred each. Plus, the gun fires in huge bursts, so you can't even tap the trigger to save ammo. And of course, there's also the fact that the thing is vulnerable while coming in low and slow. These days, you save more by not getting hit in the first place, especially since supplies for the A-10's are running out, and the frames are showing their age. It was great, but it's time to let go and say goodbye.

>>31099740
>the Air Force hasn't actually decided what constitutes a ground attack operation, what capabilities are necessary to successfully carry out ground attacks, and what ground attack aircraft should be able to do.
Except that the Air Force most certainly does; those considerations go into every planned CAS / DAS mission; the reason they're using B-1Bs over Syria isn't because
>lol why not
but because they know that they need precision guided munitions, need a good loiter time, need certain weapon effects (there's IIRC 6 specific metrics looked at), need to be survivable and (as a lesser factor) need to be cost efficient (in this case, the B-1B costs something like 3x as much as the A-10 per hour, but can hit >5x the targets in a single sortie).

I strongly suspect that this is 90% McCain being senile and jockeying for favor, while pressuring the GAO (specifically Michael Sullivan) to review the matter (ask the GAO or DOT&E to look at something and 99.9% of the time you'll get a negative report due to the nature of their work; don't like a program? Call for a report by one of those two.) Don't forget that McCain, the head of the House Armed Security Council outright denied the fact / numbers showing that the F-16 / F-15E are the workhorses of CAS and do more CAS than A-10s.

>>31100520
>just make the shit to make the shit to make A-10s.

You literally can't. The factories are gone, as are the companies that owned the rights to the patents and designs. They went to China. They all went to China.

>>31100561
Even the Chinks aren't stupid enough to clone the A-10.

>>31100418
You mean this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H7UYLcTxog

>We claim this 30m high hill in the name of-

>>31100546
nigger here, I wish I still had the scans of some old A-10 gun trial datasheets against some shit tier T-55s.

pretty much what happened was, they set up a T-55 and had a warthog do some gun runs, with 150 round bursts each pass, and from various engagement ranges and angles.

the results were typically 5-7 impacts on the tank itself of the initial 150 round burst, with 0-1 perforations being the typical final result.

keep in mind, this was from an optimal angle (flat) and a closer than typical engagement range (roughly 500 meters). The bursts done from within the typical A-10 attack profile never perforated the T-55.

also
>literally scavenging spare hog parts from existing hog airframes
blunder of the century

>>31100578
I honestly hope the airforce just keeps those things in the hangar as a giant middle finger to those idiots in congress at this point. They're politicians, not professionals at warfare.

File: mav vs jester.webm (427KB, 606x246px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 606x246px

>>31100605
I hope they get F-14'd.

They need to know how it felt.

Americans as inefficient as always. This is why China will overtake America in a few years.

File: topgun.webm (370KB, 606x254px) Image search: [Google]

370KB, 606x254px

>>31100710
coming from the guys who payed for old prints of the F-35 with design flaws intentionally included.

>>31100685
>I hope they get F-14'd.
>They need to know how it felt.

what do you mean? i know nothing about the f14's history or capabilities or shortcomings or shinings.

>>31100710
>50 cents have been deposited in your account

>>31100578
Do you even know what you are saying? The A10 has destroyed hundreds of tanks of T-55 vintage.

>>31100721
You mean let Americans polish the turd and take away the pearl.

File: scrapping-an-f-14-tomcat[1].jpg (33KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x480px

>>31100730

>>31100743
with missiles and anti-tank cluster bombs

>>31099709
Good thing the U.S. never signed the Geneva convention.
Aka pussy euro fag convention

>>31100730
They all got shredded when retired to prevent dirty Iran somehow stealing parts from boneyards / museums.

File: 1377145888740.gif (964KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 450x253px

>>31100743
How many with the gun?

>>31100730
The same reasons why the A-10 can no longer be maintained by the US military are why the F-14 was retired by the US military.

Namely, that by transitioning from a manufacturing to service and information-based economy, the US no longer has the industrial capacity to maintain the world's largest military.

>>31100769
are you fucking serious? all the f14's are gone? what the hell.

>>31100767
Yet the US still doesn't use incendiary weapons anymore, not even infantry-portable white phosphorous grenades.

File: cheney.jpg (306KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 2000x1000px

>>31100791

>>31100770
Looks like a ratio of 3:1 missile kills to gun kills over it's lifetime. Which would translate into something like 700:200.

>>31100791
There are actually quite a few on display if you want to see one, wiki will have a list.

>>31100578

Idk if it's the same or a different one but I remember the tests of the T-62s came out that way: the T-55s could actually be beaten more commonly than the T-62s, which is fine if you consider NATO apparently thought the whole Soviet Army and NSWP forces were T-55s.
It's too bad the T-64, T-72, and T-80 are basically impervious to the GAU-8.

I honestly don't buy into the notion the A-10 was necessary a "tank buster" in total concept. It's design is certainly suited for CAS, but it seems to me the A-10 was designed with intention to rip appart Soviet Mechanized and Motorized Infantry units.
It's much harder explaining the nuances of the importance of destroying the Mechanized/motorized Infantry units of the USSR/NSWP to budget experts than it is to justify your aircraft as being a "tank buster", a buzzword that describes exactly what its supposed to do without any frills. Ita not like the USAF didn't understand that the 30mm gun was going to be ineffective against tanks, since the Army already understood that larger HEAT charges were needed.

So I'm willing to bet the original idea was more or less for the A-10 to rip into Mechananized Infantry units with gun and rockets while retaining bombs and AGMs for use against hardened structures and supporting Infantry tanks. It's armored because it expected to actually come against SPAAGs, MANPADS and SRADA, of which there was far more of in Soviet Infantry units than Tank units. The gun wasn't ever meant rightly to rip into tanks but to rip up Infantry transporters, trucks, lightly armored vehicles, and structures.

Ofc this is just retarded speculation, I really don't know a terrible much about the USs CAS doctrine with Jets.

>>31100820
yeah i wiki'd it right after posting, not to mention there are a fuckload in service in iran still

File: 1430533136653.jpg (112KB, 452x554px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 452x554px

>>31100796
>he hasn't heard of "masking troop movements"

>>31100805
I'll wager I could find proof of the US losing two warthogs in a single day before you could find proof of an A-10 ever destroying and confirming a kill on a T-55 in combat.

>>31100840
not the guy you're arguing with but why do you care so much sperglord? so what if they dont use the gun. you're fixated on faggy shit.

>>31100840
>confirming a kill with the gun
I should have added that part to make things clearer

>>31100823
>Designed specifically for the anti-tank role, the Avenger delivers very powerful rounds at a high rate of fire.

At the time, they were pretty much effective against T-55s and the side and rear armor of T-64s, less so against T-72s and above. Now, you see similar weapons mounted on Strykers, which gives you an idea of their anti-tank effectiveness against "modern" militaries.

>>31100853
>you're fixated on faggy shit.
nothing you say to me will crush my dream of the B-1R being a thing

>>31100560
There's a reason why the Air Force is not saying that the B1 Bomber can replace the A10.

>>31100823
Dunno about the politics, but your understanding of how the A-10 was to be used is more or less correct. It would load up on missiles for scrapping tanks and use the gun to mop up softer targets like IFVs, trucks and APCs. They had a very short life expectancy in a "holy shit Fulda Gap NOW" situation, most were not expected to return.

File: 1463543620630_1.png (279KB, 1000x826px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 1000x826px

>>31100853
Whats the point of the a-10 in a modern and previous "tank buster" context if it's defining feature is useless? Assuming that somewhere above an one's conjecture about being a less heavily armored killer is incorrect.

File: B-1_Lancer_Night[1].jpg (351KB, 1936x1040px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1936x1040px

>>31100881
That's just because multi role aircraft replaced the hog 2 decades ago, m8.

The B-1 just happens to be a strategic bomber which just happens to possess every desirable quality for a modern age CAS mission, and it looks sweet as fuck, too.

>>31100901
>"tank buster" context if it's defining feature is useless?
whoops, that's called an opinion.

>>31100914
>whoops, that's called an opinion.
look into the C upgrade package for the Warthog, do some critical thinking, and then tell me how important the gun is.

>>31100900
I now think that "martyr creator" is a better nickname for the a10

>>31100909
Except that the CAS mission profile it's filling isn't what the A10 fills.

>>31100914
Assuming I can kill a tank better and more efficiently with bombs, then why would the gun be better and more useful in any way?

I've never seen anyone argue that the A-10 has never destroyed a tank before.

>>31100923
>and then tell me how important the gun is.
stop fixating on the gun sperglord

>>31100955
welcome to /k/ where autism reigns supreme. literally insane people post here.

>>31100952
who's saying the gun is better or more useful? you? strawman much? framing the argument much?

File: XpduLyE.jpg (77KB, 800x685px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 800x685px

you know it can fire missiles too right you stupid fucking

File: 1394475932235.jpg (37KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 512x288px

>>31100942
There's this thing called utility, it's pretty obscure and I doubt the hog has ever heard of it.

A lancer can do the hog's job, like it has been doing for a while now, but the hog can't do the lancer's job or even its own job, in a competitive sense.

>>31100958
The F-35 carries 1.125x the payload of an A-10. Why is it so critical for the gun to be working right meow with regards to the F-35, yet when talking about a plane designed around the gun itself, I'm a sperg for focusing on it?

>>31100973
It all depends on how you frame "useful" or "more efficient."

According to the US Air Force, "efficient" is sending in a plane/bomber for 2 minutes to kill a target with one smart bomb, or maybe 5 minutes to unload its full payload of bombs and missiles on 12 targets. This plane/bomber could hang around for 30 minutes before returning to refuel. This will be at the cost of tens of thousands of dollars in fuel and subsequent maintenance in addition to the cost expended in munitions.

The A10 can unload it's full load of missiles and smart bombs in about 3 minutes, because it carries less of them, and can probably take out 6 targets. Then it can hang around shooting the gun until it runs out of ammo for the gun, maybe taking out another 3 targets. But after it fired off its missiles and bombs, it could still hang around for 90 minutes on the battlefield with it's gun. This is at the cost of thousands of dollars in fuel and maintenance, but also at the cost of tens of thousands to cannibalize reserve A10s to maintain the currently flying ones because the factories that made the parts were shut down when the USAF first decided to mothball the plane in the 80s.

>>31100990
>The F-35 carries 1.125x the payload of an A-10
who's talking about the f35 here again?

you really like framing arguments so you can win them huh?

>>31100973
These posts

>>31100578
>>31100743
>>31100766
>>31100770
>>31100805
>>31100823
>>31100840
>>31100853
>>31100866
>>31100900

But nobody is talking about it, obviously

>>31100990
There's also a thing called specialization. Time and again, history has proven that a specialized vehicle can do its job better than anything not designed for its role. The B-1 is a strategic bomber and costs, as stated above, 3x what it costs the A-10 to operate for 1/3rd of the operation time.

There's a reason why the A-10 was brought back out of the doghouse for the 90s and 00s wars.

>>31101016
>There's a reason why the A-10 was brought back out of the doghouse for the 90s and 00s wars.
To get sidelined by the RGFC?

File: 1233253562469.jpg (102KB, 318x472px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 318x472px

In 10 years time when self porclaimed God Emperor Putin pushes his re-armed Russian horde army through Eastern Europe to reclaim Slavic clay the A-10 will be there to perforate their APCs and logistical and supply vehicles, if not their MBTs.

We all know why the A-10 is being retired: Money.

The USAF generals all want the most expensive, fancy new weapons projects in their arsenal so they can secure cushy jobs in retirement at defense contractors. Got Lockheed Martin the contract for 30 new F-35s that could be bought for the cost of 300 A-10s being retired? That's a lobbyist position on K Street.

And ever since Congress passed a law forbidding defense contractors from going bankrupt on development costs and feeding them as much money as they wanted to keep defense projects going, it's become that much easier for generals to look the other way when it comes to costs and say
>The US has to pay for this, or we're doomed.

>>31100900
See that's what I thought.
I'm a «Vatnik» so my understanding of the A10 comes from comparusons to mostly the Su-25 Rook, which was generally to fill a similar role as the A-10: Armor was to be handled by Helicopters or Sukhoi attackers mostly, not by the CAS, who would have been shreaded by Medium range ADA or supporting NATO fighters.

The idea that the gun on the A-10 would have been effective against modern armor is a bit silly and I had always understood it to really not be for armor but LAVs or structures: it certainly would make a shitty day for any non-harded building. At the tine of its development it was certainly an option, however in optimal against tanka. But by its introduction you'd be hard-pressed to find a Soviet or E. German Front line unit with any non-upmoded T-55 or T-62 (which was actually quite disliked), which really would just make its effectivness plummet.

It's far easier to tell people its an Anti-Tank aircraft then to explain why Soviet motor Infantry is such a danger and why ground combat against them isnt as effective as a CAS aircraft who's ability to defeat them is far greater than strike jets or the like.

File: 1428258200338.jpg (3MB, 3000x1993px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x1993px

>A-10 is kept alive thanks to BRRRT, low and slow CAS memes
>USAF doesn't know what they're talking about! Senators and paid-off organizations staffed by people who have never flown a single plane know better

File: 1439758164249.jpg (16KB, 500x163px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x163px

>>31101016
>Time and again, history has proven that a specialized vehicle can do its job better than anything not designed for its role
that must be why the Aardvark is the undisputed tank killer


because the Aardvark is a tank buster, right?

>>31101002
>Bringing up the F-35
>Winning
>>31099637

>>31101016
And OIF proved that CAS isn't worth having a specialized aircraft.

An A-10 performs modern CAS just about as well as an F-16, at the expense of being a shittier aircraft in every other respect.

It's an outdated relic from the era before smart munitions were so proliferate.

>>31101010

>>31100823
Here
I never said the gun was more useful, quite the opposite.

>>31101052
>Blindly trusting the elites.
>[Current Year]

File: laughingcrewchief.jpg (208KB, 1913x953px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1913x953px

>>31101052
DCS was only used to familiarize pilots with the C package uprade to the avionics of the Warthog, which put even more emphasis on "trying to do what the multi roles have been doing but not quite as well" while putting the gun on the shelf essentially.

Also, does this mean every sim pilot is qualified to speak on procurement decisions?

Cuz m8, let me fuckin tell you about close air support.

>>31101062
That's only if you accept that airplanes should cost millions to fly for every thousand flight hours.

The A-10 is like the Jeep compared to a Hummvee. Yes, both will get you where you're going. One can do it cheaper.

>>31101063
>I never said the gun was more useful, quite the opposite.
don't let facts ruin his day though.... lol

>>31101083
Imagine firing every single one of those AGM's all at once.

>>31096495
>The Air Force doesn’t know enough about the missions that A-10 pilots fly

Then wtf are we paying the generals for? Nobody in the AF knows what the pilots are doing? Who is in charge, for Pete's sake? It sounds like the AF doesn't give a fuck.

Take all the assets that have anything to do with A-10s and give them to the Army. Transfer the associated personnel to the Army and transfer the budget for all that stuff to the Army too.

I bet the AF would get interested in what A10 pilots are doing then.

>>31101086
A-10 isn't the cheap option. That's prop-powered COIN aircraft and drones.

File: 1384914750378.png (2MB, 2400x1350px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2400x1350px

>>31101086
>he thinks an ancient cold war design where spares come from existing airframes is in any way shape or form, "cheap" in the grand scheme of conducting modern warfare

>>31101089
>Imagine firing every single one of those AGM's all at once.
kek

>>31101089
You couldn't, that loading is impossible. You can even see some of the AGM-65s morphing into each other if you look closely.

>>31101096
you got the tism bad man. take a break.

>>31101091
Army doesn't want it too. The USAF is correct, it's just that the McCain benefits from keeping the A-10 alive.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/25/army-not-interested-in-taking-a10-warthogs-from-air-force.html

>>31101096
>Let's wait 8 years for the F-35 to finally be able to conduct CAS operations and do everything now with shit that costs a ton to fly for piddling fire support missions.
USAF test pilot even said that, as long as the F-35 has tankers, it can loiter just as long as the A-10 without tankers. That's the tradeoff.

The USAF could've put in for a replacement to the A-10 30 years ago before Gulf War I. They chose not to. And now everyone's paying the price.

>>31101093
Survivability.

Drones are probably the closest to fulfilling the A-10's mission role from a cost standpoint, but they can't loiter long enough to provide the sustained firepower that the A-10 can.

File: F-15c[1].jpg (553KB, 1920x1048px) Image search: [Google]

553KB, 1920x1048px

>>31101102
>You couldn't, that loading is impossible
anything is possible in DCS m8

actual eagle pilots will never know the feel of a 60 nmi shot on an unaware contact

because actual eagle drivers can't shoot AIM-54s.

>>31101116
>but they can't loiter long enough to provide the sustained firepower that the A-10 can.
wat
An MQ-9 can loiter for something like 9 to 16 hours, an A-10 can only loiter for less than 2 hours...

>>31101116
>survivability

Oh, you mean an aircraft that's overkill for low intensity conflicts and absolutely useless in high intensity conflicts? Because that's the A-10.

>>31101108
The Army can't maintain it. Nobody can maintain it. That's the entire issue; the US military cannot maintain it with what it currently has on hand, and rather than going to contractors to start making parts and things, it wants to scrap them entirely because
>Muh F-35
>Can save $3 billion by shutting down this hundred aircraft fleet
>And buy more F-35

>>31101120
>anything is possible in DCS m8
You can't do that without cheating.

>>31101125
But how long can the MQ-9 keep shooting off missiles and bullets?

>>31101127
Why don't you use Sopwith Camels against ISIS instead of B-1s?

>>31101120
You never know, an F-15 + targeting data sent from an F-35 or F-22 + an AMRAAM...

>>31101137
How do you measure combat endurance? Plus, keep in mind that you can operate 5x MQ-9s for the cost of 1x A-10.

>>31101137
>Why don't you use Sopwith Camels against ISIS instead of B-1s?
Look at the Super Tucano and OA-X program, that's pretty much what they want to do.

File: titanium tub.png (115KB, 997x290px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 997x290px

>>31101116
>Survivability.
see >>31101127

>>31101137
>slopwith camels

Too slow, can't hold enough armament, can't fly high enough, not enough range, etc.

An actually relevant prop plane, the Vietnam era OV-10D, got overhauled and sent to Syria, where it was purportedly used to great effect.

>>31101137
A fully loaded A-10 isn't going to go anywhere quickly. B-1s carry a fuck ton more ordinance, loiter longer and did more CAS during the Iraqi/Afghan wars.

>>31101157
Drones are shot down way easier than an A-10.

>>31101156
Except nobody is actually doing that. It's only been proposed, and run into opposition because of survivability, payload, and combat flight time issues.

>>31101171
A-10s don't do low and slow anymore. CAS doesn't require low and slow anymore.

>>31101131
>cheating
lol

you try taking off in a warthog loaded with 32,000lb of AGM strapped to your frame.

will admit that an F-15 with phoenix missiles isn't fair, though seeing the bastards soar up to 80,000 feet is fucking glorious.

>>31101171

File: drone edition.png (18KB, 997x290px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 997x290px

>>31101193
forgot pic

File: 1406480745056.png (34KB, 450x367px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 450x367px

>>31101200
>Getting shot down by a strela-10

>>31101187
That's only because there aren't US boots on the ground, or fixed positions to defend. In Syria it's just targeted air strikes. And it's not just low and slow.

A specialized CAS plane succeeds on efficient fuel use (loiter time), low and slow flying (target discrimination and acquisition), and rough landing strip capability (close to the fight).

>>31101016
>There's also a thing called specialization

Your right, for cas and coin, the reaper is undisputedly better.

File: 1450518457683.jpg (28KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 540x540px

>>31101205
>triple redundancy

>>31101200
Oh wow, full-on war against a well-prepared, well-funded, relatively advanced enemy versus getting your drones shot down by AK-47s and taken to Iran to be reverse-engineered.

>>31101206
Welcome to 2016. If you haven't noticed we have TGPs now and plenty of modern CAS experience from Iraq/Afghanistan. Low and slow is no longer desirable and A-10s do the same thing everyone else does. Fly high and drop JDAMs.

>>31101214
The sensors used on the MQ-1, MQ-9, U-28, MC-12, AC-130 — and all fighter/attack planes in the inventory — generally operate within a narrow 5-degree field of view with no peripheral sensing.

File: 1439797295525.jpg (37KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 500x365px

>>31101219
if we can get a virus into their nuclear refinement facilities to cause physical damage to their nuclear program, I'm sure we can come up with something equally cheeky for if Iran ever reverse engineered a drone

holy shit a drone guys

>>31101182
Afghans got them from the USAF; the only real opposition to it too is a lack of funding from Congress.

>>31101236
Don't you realize what they'll do with it? Reaper-knockoffs become the AK-47 of the 21st century.

>>31100984
But the F-35 can fire missiles and bombs better than the A-10--because it has far, far better sensors, better loiter time, stealth to protect it from SAMs/ADA, AAMs to protect it from enemy aircraft, and if maximum stealth isn't needed, it can actually carry more missiles and bombs than the A-10 can.

The only advantage of the A-10 is muh low'n'slow gun runs. That's why their focus has been on showing you how the gun is less efficient/cost-effective/safe than those missiles and bombs.

>>31097013
And thats the issue. I love the A-10, as do it's pilots and the guys on the ground. But it's airframe is effectively ancient. They've had wing struts break under takeoff weight, for fucks sake. It's an old, tired aircraft.

Not to say it's useless, or it's mission is obsolete. Hardly. The solution is to build a new specialized CAS platform, but good fucking luck getting the air scouts to get behind it. CAS isn't mach-speed, fly-by-wire MUHSTEALTH enough.

Seriously. Just make the air force the dedicated bomber and interceptor force that it used to be, base it off the mainland, and give everything else back to the Army.

>>31101002
Err... the F-35 is the *replacement* for the A-10.

That might have something to do with it.

>>31101309
The Army doesn't want the A-10.

The Air Force doesn't hate CAS, that's a stupid fucking myth.

CAS isn't low n slow, that's the reality of the age we live in.

>>31101309
>but good fucking luck getting the air scouts to get behind it.
And do you know why that is? THERE'S NO MONEY FOR IT. Even if you wanted it, that money goes towards other priorities. Right now, the USAF is in the midst of the three biggest aircraft procurement programs of the past 20 years. It has also flying a multitude of combat missions for over two decades, wearing out aircraft faster than expected, never mind the costs of doing it. It also seeks to expand into ISR even further, with procurement of drones.

So yeah, good luck finding the money. Keep the pilots, keep the training, put them in other aircraft. Done deal.

>>31101309
But the Air Force literally paid to rewing the entire fleet. The problem is that there's nothing in the pipeline as specialized, as low-cost for low-intensity conflicts, as the A-10. We just have generals going
>We'll just use the F-35 in a couple of years!

>>31101353
Because they realized drones are more than enough for insurgents.

A-10 was made to shred commie tanks in the fulda gap.
As much as I love the plane, I don't think it has a real purpose today

>>31101324
I actually agree with you on all counts (I'm the guy you responded to.)

The A-10 itself needs to be put out to pasture. Thing is, what the hell with replace it? Attack helos? Please. The flying white elephant that is the F-35? That thing is going to be so expensive you'd be an idiot to send it into combat. Strike Eagle? Okay, at least there's something we can use. Too bad we have so few.

Main thing that needs to happen is beating Congresscritters and senior AF officers about the head and shoulders until they finally realize it's not 1985 anymore. Same for the Navy, to be honest.

If you really can't rebuild the factories for A-10 parts, then start designing the A-20 and get on with it.

The F-35 will be the temporary replacement teacher for the class until the true successor to the A-10 is ready. Don't forget the railguns.

>The service “has not established clear requirements for the missions the A-10 performs, and in the absence of these requirements, has not fully identified the capacity or capability gaps that could result from the A-10 divestment.
you don't say

all i could see was a great push to "REPLACE THE A-10 NOW!!!" even though no replacement seems to exist

>>31099709
Texan IIs? Seriously?

>>31100372
Because you are going to be one with the universe?

File: 1465696611154.png (367KB, 800x635px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 800x635px

>>31100520
Holy fuck, Nice one faggot

>>31101383
What's wrong with Apaches?

Anything they can't handle, you're better off using an F-35 for anyways.

>>31096731
>we don't even know what the A-10 is supposed to do in today's combat environment
>we don't even know
>we

Who is the "we", anon?

>>31101231
Lol the MTS on the mq1/9 has plenty of fields of view over 15 degrees. And that's not including any special pods

>>31100099
>except multi roles and strategic bombers have been providing more CAS than the Warthog in every single theater of operation, for the last few decades.
And why is this? Could it be a shortage of A-10? Also what is the quality of CAS served it by bombers? After all there is a world of difference between bombing and use of the GAU.


>It makes me sad that people who literally haven't flown a plane or received any training in aerial combat/aeronautics are trying to legislate a cold war relic back above water, for no fucking reason other than THE GUN SOUNDS COOL
It is a while since I served but at least back then you know that there was in practice a world of difference in collateral damages with bombing from great height versus use of the GAU from a pilot who could see the targets with his own eyes.

With 1300 rounds and 1 second bursts the A-10 can destroy more than 20 targets. The alternative would be 20 bombs.

Being on the ground I didn't care for cool sounds. Really, what soldier would??

>>31100280
>GAU-8 DU is only really useful against IFVs
In my time we were also concerned with pill boxes and other dug in fortified positions.

DU has a pyrophoric effect that tungsten does not have.

>>31100380
Modern bombs are stupid accurate.

>>31100418
>do you have any idea how cheap it is to turn a dumb bomb into a smart bomb as compared to fully loading a GAU-8 magazine for the same job?

No. Do you? Please tell.

Also the dumb bomb is not for free in the first place, so please provide a full and clear breakdown of cost now that you make this assertion.

t.Taxpayer.

File: 1326e6d70eee37e90066134cef0c5fe5c93c3477.gif (455KB, 400x258px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 400x258px

>>31100380
>There's also the morale effect.

>allies see tank is largely undamaged by A10 run
>enemy is rattled, but sees that they are still alive

yeah the A10 is probably very good for enemy morale

>>31100561
>You literally can't. The factories are gone, as are the companies that owned the rights to the patents and designs. They went to China. They all went to China.
I just cannot believe this garbage.
This aircraft is from the 70's. What patents remain after 40 years??

Also, do you really think this kind of weapons tech would go to China? Do you??

It is painfully clear you have never worked in the defence industry. The amount of paper work to export any kind of tech to Russia or China is enormous and failure to comply will be painful as is well published:
http://www.pri.org/stories/2012-07-16/14-brazen-examples-iranian-agents-stealing-technology-us

In addition to imprisonment the companies involved are typically destroyed. Where I once worked we bought the remains of such a company on the cheap as the US Gov had brought a ton of bricks on all involved in a relatively minor case.

Your argument is utter garbage.

>>31100560
>while pressuring the GAO
Wow.

GAO is expected to be impartial, not partisan and entirely independent. That is required for their work. Your accusation is breathtaking. Can you back it up?

>>31100300
Because there is no sweeter sound in combat than the BRRRRRRRRRRRT of a friendly A-10. Also dubs so A-10 stays at least 10 more years

>>31101231

good thing at altitude that covers about a quarter mile in WFOV.

and that for F-15E's and F-16's, you can still just look outside. i know you can cue the targeting pod with the helmet for the F-15E, and i would be surprised if you couldn't with the F-16.

>>31101116

are you serious? RPA's kick an A-10's ass in loiter. it doesn't have two big turbofans, it's got this tiny little Rotax and loiters for hours and hours.

>>31101137

9-16 hours.

>>31100840
>I'll wager I could find proof
Wager with an anon is useless. Talk about finding is less impressive than actually finding.

Find more, talk less and then, perhaps, people might take you seriously.

>>31096801

Why not hand the A-10 off to the Army, then? Let them have the budget and organizational headaches.

If the A-10 is so useless, the Army will figure that out in short order.

>>31101914

>quality of CAS
bad guys get dead. who cares how?

>>31100952
>Assuming I can kill a tank better and more efficiently with bombs, then why would the gun be better and more useful in any way?
>Assuming.

Assuming kills. Bombs have a large damage are, typically circular centered around the target. If you do CAS the guys on the ground as appreciating the limited collateral damage that comes from the GAU compared to the bomb delivered from great altitude.

an this be so hard to understand? Or are ground crew considered that expendable?

>>31101998
I'm not suggesting the GAO is being impartial.

I'm saying that the GAO will give a negative report to anything (because everything has flaws and the GAO's job is to find those flaws). If the HASC asked the GAO to write a report on the combat suitability of the A-10 into the future, the GAO would roast the A-10. The GAO doesn't just write reports on everything happening in the government though; there's nowhere near enough money, personnel and time for that. Therefore, they do some routine things (eg programs in development like the F-35) and other subjects that are requested of them, like looking at the retirement of the A-10.

McCain is a massive A-10 proponent, hates the F-35 and very likely has some level of dementia, but he's the head of the House Armed Senate Committee. When I say that McCain likely pressured the GAO into reviewing the matter, I'm saying that he used his legal and rightful authority to request the GAO to look into the matter. The subtext to that is that if you look at HASC hearing videos regarding the F-35 (where McCain, Bogdan, Gilmore and Sullivan are present), McCain is like Bill O'Reilly; more like a judge than a senator; if you disagree with him, he just talks over you. Thanks to his seniority and political power, he doesn't theoretically, but does practically hold rank of those who he talks down to. In other words; if McCain tells you, Mr Sullivan, head of the GAO, to look into a matter, you're more than welcome to look into it impartially and freely, but you make sure it gets done ASAP.

>>31101942
~$25k for a JDAM kit, depending on if you're building a -31, a -32, a -38, or a -54 and the exact bomb body

>>31101001
>The A10 can unload it's full load of missiles and smart bombs in about 3 minutes, because it carries less of them, and can probably take out 6 targets. Then it can hang around shooting the gun until it runs out of ammo for the gun, maybe taking out another 3 targets.
>probably take out 6 targets
>maybe taking out another 3 targets

Where do you get these number from? >>31100984 indicates a rather large capacity. 22 bombs required for 6 targets??
And 1300 rounds for "maybe another 3 targets"??

Citation needed.

>>31102103

obviously the real risk distances are classified, but it's around 100m for a -38, and that's 0.1% chance of incapacitation at that range or greater. realistically you can probably half that for who you will actually kill.

situations where you need that much discrimination are situations where you probably shouldn't be rolling in for a gun run - dynamic urban combat, for example. clearing a perimeter and dropping a bomb is safer for the ground troops.

>>31102137

you aren't carrying 22 bombs on an A-10 unless they're BDU-33s. and who cares about getting hit with a metal Nerf football with a smoke charge?

and you probably, given the cyclic rate of the A-10, can service about 3-5 targets per belt.

How is stealth an advantage with today's asymmetrical warfare? As far as I know the people we're using these planes against don't have anything but the most primitive sort of air defenses and radar.

>>31098018

Deer Momma,

I need a new sports car. I can use it for homework, getting groceries, hauling lumber, and with the snowplow. It will be best for all jobs and cheaper in the long run than your boyfrends pickup truck and your kia. You have to sell those so you can afford my sports car. Also I need it to be competitive for dating because I'm a kissless virgin.

Love,

Chair force

>>31102184

and you'd be wrong.

Russia put a SA-22 in Syria not too long ago.

>>31101309
>wing strut
confirmed for not knowing a single thing you're talking about

but please, share more of your hot opinions.

>>31102101
>bad guys get dead. who cares how?
None.

However the good guys on the ground is very concerned about the quality as in lack of collateral damage. At least when I was in the Army.

>>31102237
And out of all aircraft that perform CAS the A-10 has been responsible for the greatest number of friendly fire casualties.

Guys on the ground only care about memes like BRRRRTTT.

>>31102088
>Why not hand the A-10 off to the Army, then?
They say they do not want it. They too feel the impact of the ongoing acquisitions. Better then to sell to Israel and let them evaluate their efficiencies and deficiencies. For you know they will use them.

>>31102255
>Guys on the ground only care about memes like BRRRRTTT.
What garbage. You obviously have never served on the ground.

>>31102268

then why do so many game the system and request 30mm forward firing?

>>31102219
Are we using planes against these Russian SA-22s?? I would have thought that would be on all the front pages.

>>31102280
They're in the hands of the Syrian military, who is not being fought against. The US and partners are not in Syria by invitation however, so if Syria ever decides that they've had enough (eg a western jet bombs a Syrian government building for some reason) they could turn hostile.

>>31100464

Hey! Blue board, no moar hardcore.

>>31099922
you dont want spare tooling (that can help reverse engineering) to be just lying around or stolen.

>>31101914
>After all there is a world of difference between bombing and use of the GAU.

Yeah, the bombing is effective.

>>31101983
>This aircraft is from the 70's. What patents remain after 40 years??

potentially all of them.

>Also, do you really think this kind of weapons tech would go to China? Do you??

Yes, china will steal everything it can.

>It is painfully clear you have never worked in the defence industry. The amount of paper work to export any kind of tech to Russia or China is enormous and failure to comply will be painful as is well published

>china could never steal our intellectual property because that's illegal

>In addition to imprisonment the companies involved are typically destroyed.

uh huh.

>Your argument is utter garbage.

You're blowing smoke out your ass.

>>31097972
Can you explain gliderposting? Is it based on that retard who wants to make tanks glider?

>>31102539
It's about the guy that repeatedly argued that assault gliders need to come back

>>31096495
You know, half of the blowback against the AF wouldn't be there if they would at least put out some kind of competition to replace the A-10 instead of tip-toeing around the subject.

Have interested parties put in a submission, build it, stress test them, and go from there. But the AF won't do that.

>>31102617
>But the AF won't do that.

Because its a waste of money. The niche jobs the a-10 does, drones do it better. Everything else, multiroles do it much better.

It is interceptor tier now. The concept is obsolete.

>>31101983
>This aircraft is from the 70's. What patents remain after 40 years??

So you plan on remaking all the tooling, figuring out how to do everything over again, new training material, new workers on everything, going through the LRIP process all over again..

Just so you can have something that's only useful in COIN these days when other weapon systems around right now are cheaper and more effective.

Brilliant.

File: ThePastIsTheFuture.jpg (39KB, 750x517px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 750x517px

Now I know the OV-10D is in play.. but what if they turned them into NOGS again, but with updated equipment, 30mm CTWS and AGM-176 Griffin's loaded for support. If it worked out you could have like sixteen Griffins flying off of this thing destroying shit on the deck with a slaved turret pounding shit accurately on the ground, be it a 25mm or some high speed CTWS shit.

Again, everyone knows about them bringing back two OV-10's for experimentation and employment in the SOCOM community, but if you could take all those upgrades and just beef the armament to better fit the gunship role, maybe the A-10 wouldn't be needed anymore.

In any case, having a "spooky" on station that isn't a full blown fucking AC-130 would be nice.

>>31102109

He's saying that you're implying that the bombs themselves are free.

>>31102900
Tons are excess from Vietnam, etc stockpiled for decades, bought back in the day for something like $100.

>>31102508
Old law, patents lasted 17 years.
Newer law, patents last 20 years from filing date.

The 70's are, in case you didn't notice, 4 decades in the past.

>You're blowing smoke out your ass.
Nice to see you cannot tell the difference between facts and smoke.

>>31102650
>extrapolating wildly.
I never said any of those things.

>Brilliant
Sure. Sure.

>>31101353
>what is OA-X

>>31101914
>Could it be a shortage of A-10?
Do you think we have a massive fleet of lancers or something?

>>31104028
It was a question, and I don't know how many operational lancers there might be. It was the earlier poster who wrote about multi roles and strategic bombers, I just asked for clarification.

Some times a question is just that, a question, and not wild posturing.

File: a10_2.jpg (44KB, 620x371px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 620x371px

>>31101353
>>31096495

>The problem is that there's nothing in the pipeline as specialized, as low-cost for low-intensity conflicts, as the A-10.

You're really selling the A-10 short if you think it was ever intended to be specialized for low-end conflicts. The exact opposite is true. The A-10 was designed for the battlefields of the Cold War with a dual focus on close air support and anti-armor interdiction missions. If the cold war had gone hot, the A-10 would have been the first lane of defense if the Soviets had attempted to make a push into western Europe. The A-10 would have been the perfect aircraft for that role, at the time. Back then, radars had a hard time picking up anything flying at low altitude so the A-10 would have been basically a stealth fighter.

Improvements to radar (and tank armor) have rendered the A-10 obsolete. The A-10's 30 mm gun would have a very difficult time trying to get through modern tanks.

>>31101002
Are you retarded?

>>31103793
On paper, not a real thing. And there's no sign that it will become a real thing. It also can't fully replace the A-10 because it'll mostly be carrying a couple smart bombs then flying back to rearm.

>>31102075
>>31102068
The Reaper carries enough missiles to continually fire them off for 9 hours? That's definitely a lot longer than the A-10's 90 minutes.

>>31104773
>>31104788
A-10s don't fly around fully loaded you know. And you have have more drones on station for every A-10 in the air.

>>31102617
>>31102627
Basically the Air Force is really short-sighted. They want half the Air Force to be drone jockeys and the other half to be Top Gun, and damn the expense.

>>31104811
USAF is correct though.

>>31103160
Wait, so why is the USAF cannibalizing old A-10s for parts when they could literally just go to a company and say
>Here's a contract for $33 million
>Make us some spares
>Here are the patents

>>31104252
When attacking a tank there are 3 kinds of kills
- mobility kill
- fire power kill
- total kill

In many cases mobility kill will do the job. Tanks are after all made for high mobility and rendering it a pill box will reduce the value of the tank significantly. Sure, a total kill is preferable but destroying the belts, drives and wheels is far easier and is not significantly armored.

>>31096495
>armchair generals are STILL posting "LE EPIC BRRT GOTTA BE LOW N SLOW TO DO CAS" memes

fucking kill yourself you retarded nigger, delete this thread, and delete yourself from the fucking universe.

>>31105010
>Risking yourself to SHORAD to maybe take out a tank
Just not worth it when SDBs are the future.

>>31105032

Is it feasible to take out a tank using just a small diameter bomb?

>>31105069
It's one of the requirements for the SDB-II.

>>31105096

You win this round.

>mfw ROCKET PODS have a lower CEP than GAU-8 while having superior penetration, superior HE filler
>you can carry more rockets than 30mm if you load up enough pods

A-10 B T FO

>>31105010
There's more than just that. There's also just the standard "mission kill", which is just when the tank is unable to carry out its mission for some reason.

>>31105225
Rocket pods are the shit. APKWS takes them from great to absolutely brilliant. Imagine, each rocket is now a PGM. Thus, you get an insane amount of firepower just from a single pod.

>>31096495
We're never getting rid of this piece of shit meme plane will we?

>>31102109
How much does it cost to fill up an A-10 magazine?

File: 1366513453629.jpg (2MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1600px

>>31105306
Will the F-35 be APKWS capable?

Honestly that sounds like the best Anti-Tank aircraft ever devised, holy fuck.

>>31105572
It's not large enough to take out tanks, but it should be capable of taking out at least all light armor such as BTRs. Probably BMPs as well. It's also brilliant for infantry targets. You can actually target individual foxholes with these and be cost effective.

As for F-35 employment, it's not wired for it yet, but the Harrier is and I'd be very surprised if the Marines don't put it on their F-35Bs. I've seen nothing that indicates it will, but I don't see why it wouldn't be.

>>31105572
Guided rockets are more of a chopper thing. Guided glide bombs are more logical for jets.

>>31105664
>implying rocket pods don't make sense for airplanes
If nothing else, on a single pylon you can carry a 19 shot launcher. Each one of these can be precision guided. They're fucking astounding. For decades they were used on aircraft, and it is only when PGMs became a thing that they started to fall out of favor.

>>31105725

>Each one of these can be precision guided.

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose? 70 mm rockets are supposed to be cheap and spammable.

>>31105620
>not large enough to take out tanks.
Pretty sure the Hydra 70 has more penetration than the GAU-8, so at the very least it can replace that role.

>>31105664
APKWS has been tested on AV-8s, F-16s, and A-10s. I think the real benefit would be that you'd potentially obtain the AT capability of 14 SDBs with just two pods filled with APKWS.

>>31101914
AF targeteer here--my AFSC is specifically to handle air to mud, and we care about nothing other than blowing up ground targets while minimizing collateral. I only have a few minutes so I'll keep this brief.

The B-1 is far superior as a CAS platform than the A-10, with far more enemies killed and CAS missions flown even when serving alongside A-10s in theater (and the A-10s typically outnumber the B-1s when both are present). It can get to a TIC far faster which means fewer casualties waiting on CAS to arrive. It carries more munitions and has a superb loiter time.

>It is a while since I served but at least back then you know that there was in practice a world of difference in collateral damages with bombing from great height versus use of the GAU from a pilot who could see the targets with his own eyes.
>With 1300 rounds and 1 second bursts the A-10 can destroy more than 20 targets. The alternative would be 20 bombs.
The GAU is shit, SHIT for anti-personnel use. For use against light vehicles, decent, unless your objective is to kill the personnel inside, then it's mediocre/acceptable. The only thing I've seen it do well for CAS is knock people off of motorcycles (they lose control when rounds are crashing around them and fall off). In fact, because the AF really cares about limited collateral damage we pushed for the development of a REALLY GOOD low collateral damage bomb: the BLU-129. It's amazing. Guys in combat theaters RIGHT NOW love the shit out of it because it can be dropped damn near on top of them with minuscule risk of collateral effects. With 1300 rounds and burst firing (1 second bursts don't happen in reality) the A-10 may kill as many as 5 personnel. A single guided munition is basically a 97% guaranteed kill (always a chance of mechanical or fuse failure) for 1 to 12 personnel depending on how close they are. We usually see 2-5 dead per bomb in practice. Modern laser targeting pods work better than the Mk1 eyeball, too.

>>31105754
Having better rockets means you use less, so it greatly adds capability without increasing weight by much. It's like having 7 mini hellfires for the same amount of rack space as two hellfires. For unarmored targets, that's dope as fuck.

>>31105776

I'll take your word for it.

>>31105754
These are still dirt cheap as far as PGMs go, while also spammable. They're literally a thing that screws onto the front of a normal 2.75" rocket.

Furthermore, they're practically the perfect weapon for CAS. In fact, that was why they were designed- they asked people what would be the perfect CAS weapon and this is what they came up with. It's something which is laser accurate, can be carried in high numbers, packs a decent punch, and is pretty cheap. I love it so much.

>>31105759
>Pretty sure the Hydra 70 has more penetration than the GAU-8, so at the very least it can replace that role.
The GAU-8 can't get anywhere near killing modern tanks either. There's a reason the Hellfire is so much bigger and FFARs aren't being used for the task. As I said earlier, it could kill light armor, but not tanks.

File: A-4 Rocket Spam.jpg (23KB, 500x316px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 500x316px

>>31105800
Look at this. Each one of those pods carries 19 rockets. Now imagine that instead of using 5+ per target to try and get a hit, you're only using one. That is a hell of a lot of dead targets, yeah?

>>31105862

Is this only for the Apache or does it also worked for the F-35?

>>31105918
It hasn't been integrated with the F-35 yet, but it either has been or is in the process of being added to a number of other multiroles. Considering the F-35 is technically not officially wired to carry external munitions yet and doesn't have all of its weapons integrated yet, this isn't surprising. Considering the Marines have it integrated on their Harriers, I would be very surprised if it wasn't put on the F-35B.

>>31104773
>it'll mostly be carrying a couple smart bombs then flying back to rearm.

So, what a modern A-10 does, for cheaper, with better loiter time? I'm not seeing the problem.

>>31096601
Not an argument.

The GAO isn't congress. It is made up of military experts picked in a bipartisan manner.

Someone explain to me again why the opinions of politicians and external agencies on military tactics/hardware should mean fuck all when compared to those of the actual military branch concerned.

Congressmen > Generals and Colonels when discussing aerial warfare?

Really?

>>31106215

Can you list them for me,

Looking at the guy that runs the place and a few of his lowers shows no high level military experience

>>31106215
The GAO is often full of shit. This is one of those cases. They are ALWAYS saying "there's insufficient research or testing" regardless of how much testing or research has taken place or saying such things as "unfinished things are unfinished". Furthermore, it's staffed by career bureaucrats who have no idea what things are like in actual usage. They're a bunch of idiots.

>>31105069
The SDB 1 has a warhead that makes the Maverick look weak

File: 1385616740357.jpg (416KB, 1600x1043px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1600x1043px

>>31106231
Some people call the Sun Tzu's art of war common sense but thousands of years later politicians still meddle with the military for personal gain and wage protracted campaigns.

File: b-25h_a-10a_vwtype1.jpg (572KB, 1800x1800px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 1800x1800px

>>31096495
A-10 could use a tail gunner position so it can strafe after it strafes.

>>31106440
And counter the deceleration from the cannon / make up for the weak engines

>>31106341
SDB-1 is shit for taking out tanks. Note the guidance system. There's a reason the SDB-2 is a thing.

>>31106775
You're forgetting about LSDB 1; the laser-guidance addon kit.

>>31106796
... that's the SDB-2

>>31102088
The army lacks any logistical or personnel capability to support the A-10 in any capacity. Attempting to just 'give them over' would be a monumental headache and cost even more than maintaining a rapidly deteriorating and quickly irrelevant aircraft.

>>31106796
It's just the LSDB, and it was only temporary while the SDB-II entered service, which it has.

>>31103193
No shit I extrapolated.

How the fuck do you think you're going to get new spare parts and airframes otherwise you dumb fuck?

>>31097968
What happened to the company? Did it just shut down or was it bought out?

>>31106875

It got bought out by another company that also got bought out by another company soon afterwards.

>>31106804
No, the SDB II is completely different, it uses millimeter-wave radar, infrared and a laser receiver. The SDB II also has a different warhead.

The LSDB is literally just an SDB 1 with a nosejob to fit a laser receiver.

>>31106844
SDB II is still at least a year from entering service.

>>31106875

nobody ever goes under in aviation, they just get bought out to form Martin Marietta Northrop Grumman McDonnell Douglas Boeing BAE General Dynamics General Atomics Scaled Composites Raytheon Fairchild Republic Airbus Rocketdyne Pratt & Whitney Rolls Royce Systems.

>>31106965
>Martin Marietta Northrop Grumman McDonnell Douglas Boeing BAE General Dynamics General Atomics Scaled Composites Raytheon Fairchild Republic Airbus Rocketdyne Pratt & Whitney Rolls Royce Systems: a Lockheed company

fixed it, sorry.

>>31101091
How about the Marines?

>>31107047

if nothing else, the A-10 refuels in a way completely different from every other Marine fixed-wing asset.

>>31107047
Why would the Marines want a tactical aircraft which can't fly off of amphibs or carriers?

>>31107270

Eh... the KC-130 is arguably more of a tactical asset than a strategic one, and it's definitely not boat-capable.

>>31106907
So who owns them NOW?

>>31107286
I'd say it's more strategic, which is why I made the specification.

>>31096495
>“has not established clear requirements for the missions the A-10 performs, and in the absence of these requirements, has not fully identified the capacity or capability gaps that could result from the A-10 divestment.

>We don't actually know what role the A-10 actually has or what retiring it would mean

>>31100311
>144 SDB-Is in future update

>>31100380
>Bombs are less accurate and have greater potential for collateral damage.
>A-10 responsible for the most fratricides

>>31100776
>Namely, that by transitioning from a manufacturing to service and information-based economy, the US no longer has the industrial capacity to maintain the world's largest military.
Pure bullshit.

>>31100823
>I honestly don't buy into the notion the A-10 was necessary a "tank buster" in total concept. It's design is certainly suited for CAS, but it seems to me the A-10 was designed with intention to rip appart Soviet Mechanized and Motorized Infantry units.
It was actually mainly built to kill the AH-56 Cheyenne program.

>>31100881
Because the A-10 has no role to replace.

>>31102088
The army isn't allowed to have tactical fixed wing because generals made a bad deal and aren't brave enough to renege.

>>31102789
We just need a drone gunship.

A drone that fires artillery shells. That's what we need. Maybe even those guided Excalibur rounds.

>>31100990
Reminder that the A-10 had 5400+ Maverick shots and almost no gun kills in Desert Storm.

>>31105761
>>31105761
The B1 is more expensive, has a larger crew and larger maintenance tail.

You're comparing a Ford Ranger to a Mack 18-wheeler.

>>31107685
And what's more efficient to operate as a transport? 10 Ford Rangers or a single Mack?

>>31101035
>We all know why the A-10 is being retired: Money.
Yeah, the A-10 isn't worth the costs and misdirected personnel to keep it in service, and never really was.

>>31107706
I'd have to see the actual flight hour costs and how you're justifying a B-1B is worth 10 A-10.

2-4 A-10 I can see, but you're just replacing a flight with a single ship. And with 4 A-10 you could have them operating in pairs in two different theaters.

>>31101083
Heh, current Mavs are only mountable one per pylon.

File: T-80B_in_front_of_the_T-34_museum,_Moscow_Oblast.jpg (2MB, 2250x1415px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2250x1415px

>>31096495

The A-10 became obsolete the moment the T-80 entered service. The GAU-8 cannot penetrate this.

>>31101130
Not to mention news MOSs and schools, new facilities, new officer training pipelines for a dead-end career...

>>31107778
The A-10's situation was precarious ever since it was put into service. The A-10 was pretty much slated to be torn to shreds given the amount of mobile Soviet AA even more so than other aircraft.

>>31101219
>F-16s handled the same mission without the loss rate after the A-10s failed

>>31107778
It was dicey against the T-62, let alone subsequent MBTs

>>31101309
>or it's mission is obsolete
It never had a clearly defined mission beyond "fuck, we're stuck with it, might as well use it."

>>31101383
F-16s like they did in the Gulf War
AH-64s if for some reason you need to be low and slow

>>31107838

The mission for the A-10 was always:

>The Army is developing a new helicopter called the AH-56.

>lol what is this bullshit

>Oh wait, it's actually turning out really well

>Quick, throw something together that we can use to one-up them

>>31101383
>Thing is, what the hell with replace it?
Nothing, we've got plenty of aircraft that work better.

>>31101383
Drones. OH-58 has been replaced by the Grey Eagle (Army Predator)

Laser anti-air and later laser anti-ground will eventually become commonplace, meaning if you're line of sight and detected, you're dead.

>>31102210
Yeah, except the F-35's a better pickup truck than the A-10. An F-250 to the El Camino.

>>31107350
Bought by M7 Aerospace, which was bought by Israeli defense contractor Elbit Systems.

>inb4 /pol/ dah joos

File: Realization-toy-story-3-13945729-500-279.jpg (51KB, 500x279px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x279px

>>31096495

Is there any actual record of an A-10 killing a tank with its gun? Throughout its entire service life, did the A-10 ever actually shred a tank even once?

>>31107751
In 2012, the B-1B was $54,278 per flight hour, in 2011 it was $63,996; let's just round it to $60k per flight hour.

In 2012, the A-10 was $17,564 per flight hour, in 2011 it was $17,427 per flight hour, again let's just round it to $18k per flight hour.

That makes the B-1B 3.3x as expensive as an A-10C.

The A-10 carries 16,000lb max, but ultimately carries between 6-10 munitions, often being Mavericks and either 500lb or 1000lb JDAMs. Due to the A-10's limited combat radius, drag is also a concern, so some hardpoints go unused to increase loiter time, etc.

The B-1B internally carries 75,000lb internally and optionally 50,000lb externally. Realistically though it just carries internal bombs, of which it can carry up to 84x 500lb JDAMs with no drag penalty (excluding the slightly increased angle of attack requirement to lift the extra weight).

So a B-1B costs 3.3x as much, but can carry ~5x as many weapons.

The B-1B also has a combat radius of just under 3,000nmi, whereas the A-10 has a combat radius of around 250nmi. That equates to a massive loiter time compared to the A-10's '1.88 hours'.

>>31101271
But anon they didn't get a reaper.

But you know,
>F-14 knockoffs become the Messerschmitt of the 80s

Odd that didn't happen huh, and they had a lot more of those than just one.

File: Fluffy sleeptalk.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>31107860
Well, after that, obviously.

>>31101035
>implying the A-10 was this cheap

No. Dont use 70s or 80s dollars. Inflation is a hell of a thing.

by todays dollars, the F-15 was stupidly expensive, and the f111 was over 100 mil a pop.

Thats like saying the modern tank is an expensive boondoggle because a WW1 tank cost 10,000 versus 7 million

>>31109442
>and the f111 was over 100 mil a pop.
600, they were rolling off at 100 then.

>>31109442

The F-111 really was stupidly expensive though.

File: Max level bard.gif (1MB, 355x288px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 355x288px

>>31101976

Please God keep the A-10 so I can fly it.

My flight instructor this summer got hired by an A-10 reserve unit, I'm super jealous. (Though I want to fly active duty, if I can make the cut.)

>>31100984
PUT 11 ALQ-119's ON IT AND HARPOON ENEMY PLANES

Why do people ITT keep saying the A-10 is obsolete?

The Pentagon has said over and over again that they want to retire the plane "entirely due to budget" shortfalls. They're so starved for cash they have to retire whole fleets to manage.

If Trump gets elected, I hope he increases the military budget to a bloated, comfortable amount like it should be.

>>31111793
Because it never had a proper role in the first place.

People have been saying the A-10 was obsolete pretty much since it's inception.

Now, the airframes are falling apart and spare parts are nonexistent. There has never been a better time to retire it.

>>31101083
>>31101120
>ralfidude poster

Aw maaaaaaaaaan

>>31107778
How does it avoid mobility kill from hits in the drive units? Doesn't look that impenetrable.

>>31111793

Because the A-10's gun cannot penetrate modern tanks and even if it could, there are better ways to deal with tanks now.

>>31112485
still useful for removing kebab and vbeds, in fact, why can't it be used for COIN?

>>31111793

People need to understand that "obsolete" does not mean "useless." The A-10 might be a bit dated now, but it could still be upgraded if the Air Force would just stop trying to retire it every two seconds. The A-10 is the perfect platform for supporting ground troops in modern warfare. No other plane comes close. Besides, the air-frames just got re-winged, it would be wasteful to retire them now.

>>31112498

Because the Air Force has a lot of high-dollar modernization projects going on right now. Something has to be cut to make room and the A-10 is a logical thing to cut because it cannot do the thing that it was built to do anymore.

>>31112510
>avoiding the question

>>31112498
Because drones and prop planes, or B-1Bs, give you a lot more bang for your buck.

>>31112505
A-10Cs are already upgraded to do the same job everyone else can do already: drop JDAMs from high up with the aid of a TGP. Much safer than a gun run.

It's not as cheap as other options against insurgents, has poor survivability versus modern AA threats and low and slow is no longer the meta.

>>31112505
Except it's not perfect; it's far too expensive for what it is. It's like using an Abrams as a cargo transport.

File: image.jpg (95KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 650x366px

>>31100757
Please sthap you're hurting me

File: 1464239515632.jpg (64KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 720x720px

>>31113111
>Post Number

>>31112625
A lot of the work is shooting up camels (with the riders), small trucks and lorries, oil tankers transporting oil from ISIS controlled fields, a lot of un-armored targets. Isn't bombs overkill in these cases?

>>31113142
Ikr

>>31113344
Isn't spraying hundreds of depleted uranium 30mm rounds?