A-10 Thread Continued: Second Sortie Edition

Starting this thread with a reputable aviation expert everyone on /k/ loves and respects

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rEdy84YGf1k

>>31114660
>The A-10's ability to provide unparalleled close air support for ground troops is unmatched by any other aircraft. The USAF's feverish insistence on retiring the A-10 before any adequate replacement is procured is negligent at best, criminal at worst.
Except every other platform does more CAS, at the same or higher quality.

>For anybody with the audacity to claim that the A-10 was ineffective during the Gulf War:
Sure, it was effective, to the tune of 5400+ Mavericks fired from medium altitude and almost no gun runs. But you ignore that the one time it was sent against a force with a half-assed air defense system they lost two in one day and had 14 grounded for damage. So objectively it was worse than the F-16, F/A-18, and F-15E in that conflict.

File: 1469263900919.gif (3MB, 640x266px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x266px

>>31115587

>Tank kills don't count if they're done with missiles
>The A-10 had one unsuccessful sortie and that totally cancels out over 8000 successful sorties
>The aircraft that did the most front-line work also got scratched a few times in the process so its useless

>>31116130
>>Tank kills don't count if they're done with missiles
If they can be done by any other fighter in pretty much the same way that invalidates the "A-10" is better at ground attack" meme.

>The A-10 had one unsuccessful sortie and that totally cancels out over 8000 successful sorties
That was also the only sortie where they were following the theoretical "optimum designed mission" of the A-10, and it totally failed at it. And F-16s took over and did the job instead.

>The aircraft that did the most front-line work also got scratched a few times in the process so its useless
>most front-line work
Lolno. In fact, for the small number deployed to desert storm it had a disproportionately high loss rate. The F-111 was the most effective ground attack workhorse in Desert Storm.

>>31116130

8000 successful sorties with no opposing IADS

>>31114660

>Is the A-10 a good ground attack aircraft?
Yes
>Is it so much better than anything else that it should be kept?
No. Not a chance in hell.

File: 1465777886985.jpg (116KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 1024x682px

>>31116198

>If they can be done by any other fighter in pretty much the same way
Is there a fighter out there that can carry 10 mavericks at once? Is there any fighter than can shred IFV's and APC's with its main gun? And has a competitive sortie rate compared to the A-10?

>muh one failed sortie totally cancels out the other 8000
This argument just doesn't work. It's literally like arguing that the F-117 was a failure because it got shot down once in its career.

>it had a disproportionately high loss rate.
Nope, for the number of sorties it did, the A-10's loss rate was very low. In terms of losses vs sorties, the A-10 was actually on par with the F-117 which is very impressive considering that the F-117 only flew at night whereas the A-10 flew day and night.

>>31116268

What would you propose as a replacement? The A-10's design gives it many unique capabilities that would be difficult to replace with any other aircraft.

>>31116320
>Is there a fighter out there that can carry 10 mavericks at once? Is there any fighter than can shred IFV's and APC's with its main gun? And has a competitive sortie rate compared to the A-10?
Not necessarily mavericks, but the F-15E can haul 20 SDB-I/IIs now and 36 in the future, the F-35 8/24 depending on load type, and in a future update the B-1 will haul 96 and eventually 144. And I'll remind you that current mavericks can only be mounted one per station, not three, so the A-10 can only carry six now.

>This argument just doesn't work. It's literally like arguing that the F-117 was a failure because it got shot down once in its career.
Nice try, but the F-117 shoot-down was a fluke. The Republican Guard attack failure was an attempt to use the A-10 in the situation it should have thrived in.

>Nope, for the number of sorties it did, the A-10's loss rate was very low. In terms of losses vs sorties, the A-10 was actually on par with the F-117 which is very impressive considering that the F-117 only flew at night whereas the A-10 flew day and night.
Compared to all. 6/25, or 24% of combat losses were A-10s or OA-10s. Disproportionately high compared to the number of other fighters in the combat zone.

>>31116343
Nothing. F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, and F-35 already do the PGM ground attack profile with excellence in open warfare environments.

And in COIN both Predator/Reaper and Prop-based planes are far more cost-efficient.

>>31116343

more F-35s