Is the A-10 even all that good of an Attack Aircraft?

>>31171121
No.

Yes, in the context of bombing untrained and under equipped sand negroes.

>>31171121

it can attack pretty well

>>31171121
Once the main gun was no longer a valid anti-tank weapon (About the time it was put into service) it was sort of mediocre.
For CAS against ragheads without decent AA it is exceptional however.

>>31171183

the gun isn't anti tank

it was NEVER anti tank

it could only kill tanks because slav armor proved to be hilariously below western expectations.

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

>>31171121
Maybe. For the time it was designed, it was a reasonably capable aircraft. Remember that the A-X program was launched when we were embroiled in Vietnam, so mission requirements reflected the technology of the time. Smart munitions were just starting to be a thing, and low-altitude attacks with unguided weapons were still considered an integral part of warfighting.

And even when technology started to outpace it, it was still a reasonably effective platform. The Gulf War showed that the A-10 could operate from medium altitudes effectively, though it was far more vulnerable to MANPADS and AAA than one would expect.

Granted, it's obsolete nowadays (and was even pushing obsolescence in 1991), but it's far from a shitty aircraft.

They are almost too bad ass. Thank god they are on our side. And those pilots? Did they escape from an insane asylum? They are nuts! Fucking dare devils.

>>31171121
Its origin was to kill the AH-56 Cheyenne helo program which the Air Force felt was encroaching on their air support mission. Which it succeeded at.

The problem was that it was built around Vietnam-era bombing theory: low-altitude release of dumb munitions, primarily gravity bombs and Rockeye cluster munitions. In the first war it served in this was unacceptable, but they managed to get it to work with the AGM-65D Maverick IR missiles. (That also gave them the ability to fly at night by using the missile's camera) Though that also shifted them to match the same medium-altitude precision strike tactics everything else was using, but with the critical flaw that is was slow and couldn't evade air defenses.

>>31171210
>Disproportionately high loss rate in Desert Storm
>"Most survivable plane ever built"

File: Su-25Ub.jpg (144KB, 530x398px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 530x398px

>>31171121

>Costs about 8 million dollars more than a Su-25 per unit
>Barely as good as the Frogfoot

Why?

Question, this guy is currently bombing ISIS, correct?

Wouldn't the Stinger missiles they have be able to shoot this guy down? How come that hasn't happened yet?

Also, are you trying to tell me that a modern tank could survive a hit from the GAU-8? I feel like 70 rounds a second of 30mm shells would knock anything out.

>>31171359
>Wouldn't the Stinger missiles they have be able to shoot this guy down? How come that hasn't happened yet?
Yes, if it was flying within the engagement envelope, but the vast majority of CAS is conducted from medium altitudes where they're safe from MANPADS.

>Also, are you trying to tell me that a modern tank could survive a hit from the GAU-8? I feel like 70 rounds a second of 30mm shells would knock anything out.
Probably yes. Modern tanks are heavily armored enough that you'd have a hard time engaging at the right angle to penetrate even the thinnest armor. It's not impossible to fuck up a tank with the GAU-8, but it's a needlessly complicated and dangerous manuever considering you could just lob a missile or bomb from miles away and get the same efffect.

>>31171394
>where they're safe from MANPADS.
And targeted by superior AA.

>>31171343

Slavs make the frogfoot. Slavs get about 200 dollars and a bottle of vodka a month.

>>31171207
It was when the plane was first planed.
If they just wanted a cannon for APCs and other light armored vehicles a M61 20mm would have done just fine and been able to carry more ammunition.

>>31171343
>only 250 rounds of 30mm

>>31171359
>Also, are you trying to tell me that a modern tank could survive a hit from the GAU-8? I feel like 70 rounds a second of 30mm shells would knock anything out.

It would definetly temporarly disable the tank, but it could probably be repaired.

>>31171343
That's the price for a baseline Su-25. The A-10 has greater payload and wing loading, and only the upgraded Su-25SM has somewhat comparable avionics (still doesn't have an HMD).

>>31171359
a peppering of 30mm on a modern tank might take out some of its optics or countermeasures and at worst break the track.

>>31171449

the M61 was more inaccurate and had less range due to the smaller shell size. When you're doing strafes you want it to matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy9VPTWyLh0

look at that weak shit.

the GAU-8's shells can also carry more explosive to saturate a soft target with.

>>31171429
>And targeted by superior AA.
Even ISIS doesn't have the kind of SAMs needed to do that kind of anti-air. Also, the fixed-site SAMs that can take out fast/high movers can and will be knocked out prior to CAS, but there's no way to for sure eliminate all the MANPADS or even the truck-mounted units.

Meaning the A-10 will (ideally) return home crippled when it has to fly against them or (unideally) go down in flames, while the F-16 will give no fucks and accomplish the mission.

>>31171429
>And targeted by superior AA.
Not really much of an issue when you're fighting against the Balsamic State.

And even against more conventional foes, medium altitude approaches are still proven. Through a combination of stealth and ECM you can reduce engagement envelopes, and radars are vulnerable and easy to spot.

That's not to say that "regular" SAMs are an easy foe to defeat, but operational practice has shown multiple times that it's easier to operate in a contested environment at medium altitudes than it is at low altitudes. Part of that comes from the fact that it's easier to disable air defenses that can reach beyond about 15,000ft, while those for lower tend to be smaller distributed systems that don't necessarily rely on radar.

File: 1463529510735.jpg (34KB, 408x804px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 408x804px

>>31171496
>Even ISIS
>EVEN

File: bottom.jpg (67KB, 800x547px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 800x547px

>>31171359
>I feel like 70 rounds a second of 30mm shells would knock anything out.
Maybe if you somehow managed to get them all to hit the same spot at point blank range but thats just not going to happen in realistic conditions.
Using a cannon against ground target is a lot like aiming a shotgun, i think the Gau-8 is supposed to have a 40 fot spread at 1000 yards or something like that.

It will however fuck up anything on the outside of the tank such as sensors and other equipment.

>>31171121
*phone vibrates*

Yes.

>>31171449
>20mm would have been just fine

The frontal armor of the BMP-1 and BMP-2 both will protect against 20mm AP at distances of more than 5-750m.
The A-10s average firing distance is more than 2000m.

The 30mm GAU-8 was definitely not able to successfully attack Russian armor more advanced than the T-62 obr. 67. The A-10 was an anti-mechanization aircraft, not a tank buster. It's weapons payload allowed it to be successful in the role of engaging armor, but it was clearly purposed to strike advancing motor and mechanized infantry.

>>31171486
>the M61 was more inaccurate and had less range
Yeah, that is very true.
Still beats actually flying over the target to drop cluster bombs like is the main alternative.

>>31171535
The solution is simple. Bring back the gyrojet.
But this time we learn our lesson and put a 20/25/30mm gyrojet bullet in a normal case.

>>31171552
>Still beats actually flying over the target to drop cluster bombs like is the main alternative.

or they could get a bigger gun.

>>31171574
This is the best response I could have hoped for.

Can we load it into trounds?

>>31171504
Vs oh, the Taliban or other shitty terrorists/freedum fitahs that the US has faced over the last decade, ISIS is far better equipped.

My friend keeps telling me it's a great air superiority fighter that carries nuclear missiles

>>31171486
>>31171595
Far, FAR better is to just use bombs. Cheaper (6 JDAMs = 1 mag fill of the GAU-8), more precise, more effective, and can be delivered from far far away and high high up.

>>31171486
>the GAU-8's shells can also carry more explosive to saturate a soft target with.
That's also because the current M61 round, PGU-28A/B, is built around fragmentation and incendiary effects when targeting aircraft. 25MM APEX and 30MM HEI are ground-targeting rounds for light armor.

>>31171624
>0:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTh0EMAH99A

>Can we load it into trounds?
Most certainly.

File: A-10 road.jpg (1MB, 2839x1899px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2839x1899px

>There will never again be camouflaged Warthogs

Fuck man, why the fuck does everything have to be boring ass grey?

File: a10-fb-cover.jpg (342KB, 2000x1137px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 2000x1137px

>>31171343

The Su-25 has the engines on the wings, so if they get hit by a missile all the ordinance on the hardpoints will explode. The A-10's engine placement is much safer. As an added bonus, the A-10's engine's are placed higher up so they are much less likely to such in debris. This is part of what gives the A-10 its famous ability to take-off and land almost anywhere.

>>31171690

Pilots really didn't like the green camo during desert storm. They felt that it made them easier to see against the sky, and it also made them more visible when flying low because green doesn't mesh well with desert. That's why it got changed. Grey doesn't really stick out against anything.

>>31171697
>The Su-25 has the engines on the wings, so if they get hit by a missile all the ordinance on the hardpoints will explode.
Source: Your ass
>As an added bonus, the A-10's engine's are placed higher up so they are much less likely to such in debris.
Some Russian airfields are in worse shape then any frontline field A-10s would be expected to fly from.

File: A-10_Thunderbolt_II_Gun_Run.jpg (2MB, 3008x1960px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3008x1960px

>>31171121
In high threat environments against modern anti aircraft systems, it wont hack it. Its far too slow.

However in low threat situations, it can really shine. It carries lots of ammo for the gun, can carry a pretty good load of bombs, rockets and missiles.

For the close air support role, it is exceptional.

Is there other planes that can do the job? For sure, but not as well as the A-10. It is pretty though, It flies low and slow allowing the pilot to more easily indentify targets, attack and re-attack quickly.

Here is a video example for you shit talking haters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWrgUZbuhiw

>>31171697
>The Su-25 has the engines on the wings, so if they get hit by a missile all the ordinance on the hardpoints will explode.
WRONG

>>31171724

Why not suitable camo painted on top for wherever they are and grey on the bottom?

Looking up at them you see gray. looking down you see camo that matches the ground.

I mean for the most part wherever the US goes it owns the sky. so camo might not be worth the time. but fuck you it looks cool.

>>31171679

>Gyrojet tround GAU-8
We have the USs Next-Gen SPAAG here.
Now we just need an ineffective gun director that targets only portapotties.

In 25 years we can surplus them to the ATF and they can replace them with dog detectors.

>>31171759
>However in low threat situations, it can really shine. It carries lots of ammo for the gun, can carry a pretty good load of bombs, rockets and missiles.
>For the close air support role, it is exceptional.
>Is there other planes that can do the job? For sure, but not as well as the A-10. It is pretty though, It flies low and slow allowing the pilot to more easily indentify targets, attack and re-attack quickly.
This is incorrect. I've done the breakdown of all troops in contact engagements in Afghanistan for a year during 2012-2013 as part of my intel job, including the breakdown of enemies killed by aircraft type. The A-10's performance was decidedly mediocre, being outclassed by helos, the F-16, and by the mother of all CAS platforms: the B-1. The B-1 was far and away the best CAS platform used in theater.

Low and slow doesn't have shit on modern targeting pods and being able to race to an engagement at speed to provide timely support. In fact, it's a detriment in many cases since it limits your time between reattack as you have to constantly reposition instead of maintaining a steady overwatch of the engagement zone.

>>31171759
>can carry a pretty good load of bombs, rockets and missiles.
But not as much as a Strike Eagle, F-35, or B-1B.

>For the close air support role, it is exceptional.
Except having the highest fratricide rate with both highest count and most incidents.

>Is there other planes that can do the job? For sure, and better than the A-10.
FTFY

> It flies low and slow allowing the pilot to more easily indentify targets, attack and re-attack quickly.
Vietnam-era bullshit that meant nothing its entire service life.

>>31171207
>the gun isn't anti tank
It has however been proven to be effective at killing UK personnel in lightly armoured vehicles.
Especially when the UK personnel were not engaging them.

half the firepower is the moral impact on the enemy
the other half is violence

>>31171823
>>Gyrojet tround GAU-8
We can go further.

It could also be a coil gun. It doesn't go absurd fast until it leaves the barrel, so you could manage timing of the solenoids fairly well.

>>31171827
>>31171834
did you even see the video guys? tell me more about a B-1 doing danger close like this.

>>31171121
Not anymore

File: 1472004124625.png (13KB, 298x307px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 298x307px

>>31171937
How about some good old fashioned artillery?

>>31171676

which still doesn't have anything on the 30mm.

>>31171669

JDAMs didn't exist back then and even now they're not a certainty. Direct LOS attacks still have value.

>>31171863

you're supposed to put sugar in your tea, not salt

>>31171957
>good old fashioned artillery?
I got you f@m

>3:23
https://youtu.be/1cfCZ3y4M0E

>>31171971
>JDAMs didn't exist back then and even now they're not a certainty.

Of course. That's why the Maverick was the A-10's primary and most effective anti-armor weapon

>Direct LOS attacks still have value.

The A-10's fracticide rate says otherwise

>>31171989
>That's why the Maverick was the A-10's primary and most effective anti-armor weapon

yeah? we already stablished the GAU-8 is not an anti tank weapon

>The A-10's fracticide rate says otherwise

can't help it when grunts ask for gun runs at danger close distances over and over because they think it's cool

>>31171957
>>31171988
>5:00
https://youtu.be/-X4SODtiHQI

>>31171937
>did you even see the video guys? tell me more about a B-1 doing danger close like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2q65qOl1tM
>49.1 NMI slant range good enough to tell what kind of truck is in your driveway
>Paired with 65NMI+ range glide boms that can bullseye a 10m target and engage in airburst, impact, and penetrator modes

>>31171957
>Cheerful loli sexbot
YAY!

Her Santa prank is hilarious.

>>31171937
I can tell you more! Experience from a JTAC I worked with. Sound effects by me.

>call in air support for ambush
>B-1 dashes to the site faster than even some other airborne assets that were closer
>it's danger close
>at this time the BLU-129 hadn't been developed so they couldn't put ordinance basically on top of friendlies without major risk
>B-1 pilot radios to JTAC: "going to do a show of force, in 30 seconds best have your ears covered"
>JTAC passes the word as fast as he can
>about 30 seconds later
>B-1 comes swooping in at low altitude, practically overhead, aimed for right over the ambushers
>AND GOES SUPERSONIC
>THE BOOM FROM ITS FOUR ENGINES RIPPING A HOLE IN THE SKY IS INSANE
>IT SCREAMS AWAAAAaaaaaaaaay
>firing has stopped from the ambush site, grunts cautiously approach
>find a bunch of Afghanis laying on the ground in shock, bleeding out of their ears, tie them all up laughing

File: 122mm rocket barrage.webm (3MB, 1280x676px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x676px

>>31172026
A single howitzer is pretty boring. Can't wipe out grid squares with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSo52Hn8gxQ

>>31172069
So the solution:
Tround gyrojet berthas and multiple aircraft in the air.

>>31171971
I don't care about then, I care about now, because that's the war I know. JDAMs are the superior option, the only real use direct LOS attacks have is for knocking people off of motorcycles so that they can more easily have a bomb dropped on them. With the GBU-54 now in use for the past 3+ years we don't even need to do that.

>>31172087
But anti-air.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmejqcd9Hd0

>>31172066
Holy shit, I had never even considered what a show of force from a supersonic capable 400000 lbs aircraft would be like...

This needs some kind of catchy meme sound like brrrt to get normies to appreciate it.

>>31172126

what sound does having bursted ear drums have?

>>31172153
I think after EEEEEEE-- comes just total deafness.

>>31171827
If you're still around, how did RPAs perform in the CAS sector?

>>31172126
>>31172066
Does this remind anyone else of Project Pluto?

>>31172106
Fair enough, what if we put it on a rocket that just did driveby's?

>>31172066
Heh, reminds me of a story I was told way back in the day, like 2003/4ish. I was in a NG Cav unit, and an old-timer NCO had this to recount:
>Needed to call in Arty
>Gets a station, they have weird procedure but authenticate properly
>Shot over-shot out
>waiting
>waiting
>waiting
>"The fuck is going on here?"
>What looks and sounds like a volkswagen rumbles overhead
>Splash over

They'd gotten ahold of a Battleship and received arty support via 16" gun.

>>31172169
As I recall, very well, both the MQ-1s and MQ-9s. The A-10 stood out because we had a fanboy in the shop who made a bet with me that it would top the list at some point. The B-1 meanwhile was just such a strong lead that it got mad kudos.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Hawg and its pilots are some of the most bro tier I've met. But objectively it's obsolete and should be retired. The F-35 is going to do CAS -amazingly- with its sensor suite (both the integrated targeting pod and the enhanced pilot situational awareness will help reduce friendly fire and put munitions right on enemy foreheads), high speed, and those stonkin' big fuel tanks giving it loiter time. Give it GBU-54s using the BLU-129 warhead and grunts are going to start appreciating it even more than the BRRRT.

>>31172240
>the BRRRT
But the morale...

>>31172240
NETT Warrior/BFT providing data to paint friendly positions on the pilot's view is probably going to be a huge change.

>>31172252
Getting fast, effective CAS that promptly eliminates the assholes shooting at you does wonders for morale too. Psychologically it does the worst thing to the enemy's mindset too: it shuts it off completely.

>>31172307
Could they make the f35 do some sort of engine pulsing to make a brrrrt-like sound?

>>31172345
What if you do something like the siren on the Stuka? Thing's so iconic, most movies still have planes make the noise when going downwards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZZ504TGDpE

>>31172190
Yeah, some anon did a greentext from the pov of a soviet motor rifle unit experiencing a pluto screaming right overhead and it's immediately what I thought of.

File: 1472665368628.gif (72KB, 175x175px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 175x175px

>>31171455
You've got to be fucking kidding me.

>>31171800
>31171800
The AF doesn't want to have to repaint a bunch of planes every time they rebase, even if it does happen infrequently.

>>31171986
Not brassing up friendlies is a good way to earn a reputation.
The opposite is also true.
Fuck your pos aircraft.

>>31172789
>not having good AA
How's that Euroshit fighter treating you bonghead?

>>31172789
When you provide the vast majority of air support you're bound to rack up some friendly fire. Or need I remind you of the Typhoon's reputation?

>>31172928
>vast majority

B1 and F-16 say "Hi"

>>31173045
And the Hornet. And Drones.

>>31171210
>most survivable

>Pilot fatal rate: 0.97
courtesy of >>31172759

File: A-7E_Corsair_II.jpg (4MB, 3000x1989px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3000x1989px

>>31171121

The A-10 was actually a step down compared to the A-7 that it replaced, at least when it was first introduced.

>>31171359
>Wouldn't the Stinger missiles they have be able to shoot this guy down?
They have FN-6 and probably some older Iglas as well. But yes, it's possible.

>How come that hasn't happened yet?
Competent mission planning, superior IRCM and flares. Newer generations of IR MANPADS are harder to fool with those however.


>>31171759
>low and slow meme
F U D D

>>31173173

>The A-10 is routinely praised by Joint Terminal Air Controllers for its ability to loiter and support troops from low-altitude.

>Surely this is just a meme

>>31173173
>F U D D
Say it with me, bit-rate.
Only so much information can be processed/perceived by a person in a given time.

You choices for air support are either just launching missiles, aircraft that are far off and their speed doesn't matter, or aircraft that are close (not implying CAS means able to high five the pilot) and going slow enough to effectively respond to the situation on the ground.

>>31171121
The best.

>>31173201
>Only so much information can be processed/perceived by a person in a given time.
And the F-35 does all of that processing and presents the information in a way that lets the pilot make decisions instead of doing the processing. Mk1 Eyeball is literally the worst fucking possible way in comparison to available tools, especially since it mean the pilot has to process with a lot less data in far less time in that "low and slow" profile.

>>31173201
The A-10 isn't a fucking Cessna. It goes a few hundred miles per hour.

>>31173281
This is true, they are typically flying only 50ish kts slower than an F-16 flying the same attack profile.

Its slowness is a worse limitation on max speed, not a better limitation on minimum speed

>>31173443
>Its slowness is a worse limitation on max speed, not a better limitation on minimum speed
I'm not so sure about that one.

>>31173281
>>31173443
Especially funny comparing to the F-18 and F-35C, which have spectacular low speed performance by virtue of having to constantly land on less than 1000' in the middle of the ocean.

>>31173483
A reasonably loaded F-16 can comfortably get down to 140 knots.
An A-10? 120 knots.

>>31172367
Better just to have Achmed and the boys explode without warning. Fearing a silent death from above to keep them too afraid to be bold, but not enough to give them warning and escape.

>>31172395
I need to see this.

>>31171301
They survived, tho.

I'll just leave these here, in a discussion about Class-A mishap rates among fighter aircraft. The last two focused down on A-10 mishap rates and pilot death rates, which were not good...

>>31172751
>>31172759
>>31172769
>>31173196
>>31173367
>>31173432
>>31173496
>>31173740

Over all pretty good info, though.

>>31172222
My step mom was telling me that she was operating on/around a battle ship doing that actually, around that time too.

>>31171301
>Disproportionately high loss rate in Desert Storm
source?

>>31172345
They're complaining a lot about how bad the f35's jet noise will be in my city, since we're quite literally built around the air base.

We could stick some sort of party horns on the vector flaps or something to make it terrifying.

>>31173160
When looking at the pic I though at first that it was an F8 Crusader. Appart from the rounder nose, the shorter stature and the wings closer to the cockpit, the A7 look pretty much like the F8.

>>31173882
Uh... How about you type "aircraft losses desert storm" into google and see what comes up, you insanely lazy fuckwit.

Oh, look:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War#1991_.28Operation_Desert_Shield.2FDesert_Storm.29
http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aaloss/
http://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/a10_combat_losses.htm

So, because you're incapable of using fucking google, I'm also assuming you're incapable of counting, so:
>A-10s lost: 7
>A-10s damaged: 13

Compared to:
>F-15s lost, damaged: 2 - 1
>F-16s lost, damaged: 3 - 4
>F-18s lost, damaged: 3 - 7
>F-14s lost, damaged: 1 - 0
>A-6s lost, damaged: 3 - 4
>EF-111/F-111Fs lost, damaged: 1 - 3
>AV-8Bs lost, damaged: 5 - 2
>B-52s lost, damaged: 0 - 6

The only aircraft which was lost more was the non-USAF Tornado GR.1, of which 9 were lost and 1 damaged.

>>31174037
You'll need to also say how many sorties each craft went on for those numbers to matter.

>>31174167
>You'll need to also say how many sorties each craft went on for those numbers to matter.
More spoonfeeding? Really?

A-10: 8,624 sorties, 20 lost or damaged. So a
>0.232 rate of loss/damage per 100 sorties

F-16: 13,340 sorties, 7 lost or damaged.
>0.052 loss/damage rate per 100 sorties.

F-15: about 8,100 sorties and change, 3 lost or damaged
>0.037 loss/damage rate

F/A-18: 9385 sorties, 10 lost or damaged
>0.107 loss/damage rate

So. The A-10 was lost or damaged per 100 sorties at over 4 times the rate of the F-16. Over 6 times the rate of the F-15. Over double the rate of the F-18.

Any more questions? Have you cracked the google puzzle yet?

>>31171986
>you're supposed to put sugar in your tea
YOU put the fukin salt in my tea you fukin toss-pot! I'll fukin bang u out in a minute u cheeky cunt!

File: a10c_sim_idaho_ang.jpg (2MB, 1920x1285px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1285px

>>31171121
>Is the A-10 even all that good of an Attack Aircraft?

It's literally the best single seat fixed wing attack aircraft ever made.

Want to actually LEARN about the A-10? Then fly it in a military grade sim, instead of listening to the memes spouted by the idiots here.

>>31171863

American air support, eh?

File: F-8E_VMF-212_CVA-34_1965_(cropped).jpg (80KB, 677x508px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 677x508px

>>31173920

>When looking at the pic I though at first that it was an F8 Crusader. Appart from the rounder nose, the shorter stature and the wings closer to the cockpit, the A7 look pretty much like the F8.

That's no coincidence. The A7 was developed directly from the F-8 airframe.

>>31174880
>It's literally the best single seat fixed wing attack aircraft ever made.
Jesus anon. The F-16 alone suggests you're a fucking idiot, much less the AV-8B, F-18 or F-35. All of these kick the shit out of the A-10 in delivering PGMs from the increased safety of altitude, and all of them kick the shit out of the A-10 in identifying and targeting strike targets.

The A-10 is only superior if you're limited to Vietnam-era strike/interdiction/CAS flight techniques.

File: tr.jpg (262KB, 798x951px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 798x951px

>>31174599
>aircraft that fly in a higher threat environment have a higher chance of getting shot down.

Why does this seem so surprising to you?

>>31174921
>Jesus anon. The F-16
>Literally names an fighter designed from the blue print stage to be a pure turn and burn close in dogfighter

>>31174880
>military grade sim
Holy fucking kek. Another anon thinks play DCS makes them some sort of aircraft expert.

>>31174880
>Want to actually LEARN about the A-10? Then fly it in a military grade sim, instead of listening to the memes spouted by the idiots here.

>Getting BTFO by facts and hard numbers
>Tries to reset the thread

>>31174929
>Implying its job wasn't done better by other aircraft
After the day the A-10s got fucked trying to deal with the Republican Guard F-16s took over and actually got the job done.

>>31174929
>Why does this seem so surprising to you?
I guess it's only surprising in that people still tout the A-10 as somehow less vulnerable to loss or damage than F-16s, F-15s, F-18s, etc. in the course of a combat mission.

>>31174938
>Literally names an fighter designed from the blue print stage to be a pure turn and burn close in dogfighter
>Actually believes this

The YF-16 might've been that, the F-16 redesign that made it into service was a larger, high-tech multirole from day 1.

>>31174599
>More spoonfeeding? Really?
You're the one using those facts as a basis for your argument. If you want them to be considered, you have to present them.

>>31175022
Well, they're fucking presented. And lo and behold, no one is presenting any sort of fact based counter-argument. Instead, you completely ignore the numbers and start talking about how awesome it is to fly it "for real". In fucking DCS. Or an argument about what it was "designed for" rather than how it actually performed in a combat environment.

>>31174939
>my complete ignorance and lack of knowledge of all things aviation related somehow trumps those who study it for a living

>>31175045
>somehow trumps those who study it for a living
A "my dad works at Nintendo" argument? Fucking really, anon? Present time stamped redacted credentials and an actual, fact based argument with sources like >>31173789
>>31174037
>>31174599
did or fuck directly off.

File: F-117_Nighthawk_Front.jpg (580KB, 1495x930px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 1495x930px

F-16s are shit and got shot down way too many times. They should have all been replaced by the Nighthawk, the superior attack aircraft

File: 1458436211759.jpg (99KB, 702x464px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 702x464px

>mfw its an A-10 fags get facefucked with facts episode

File: 1458446764034.jpg (39KB, 600x632px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x632px

>>31175067
shitty bait.

>>31175067

>Low sortie rate
>only carries two bombs
>only flies at night
>low production numbers

Yeah.....great attack aircraft you got there.

>>31173889
>f-35 plays Sandstorm at airshows
>f-35 plays E1M1 during combat
FUND THIS!

>>31175043
Retardo, I'm not arguing ANYTHING except that you need to present facts your argument relies on.

Which, at this point, you're the only one to have done.

>>31175078
>highest survival rate of any attack plane in service at the time
>lolololol "shitty plane desu"

>>31173889

Living near airports sucks not matter what they're flying.

That is, unless you're like me and you live next to a rural airport with basically not traffic that only exists due to abusing federal subsidies and tax loopholes but still manages to deliver a free yearly airshow with all kinds of military jets.

It's pretty cool then.

>>31175112

It performed so few missions that the fact it rarely got shot down isn't really an achievement. It's like saying that a soccer player who rarely plays rarely gets injured. It's technically true, but not very impressive.

File: AH-1W_Super_Cobra_assigned_to_HMLA_167.jpg (1MB, 2944x1860px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2944x1860px

Why the fuck is this piece of shit still in service? It's been shot down in ever war it's ever fought in

>>31175159

Because amphibious assault platforms require helicopters. Simple as that.

>>31175135
Not that anon, but that ain't really true. Yes, it performed few missions. But it was also responsible for flying into the teeth of the intact Iraqi IADS on night one and wrecking house on C4SIR and IADS nodes. There literally wasn't another aircraft that could do that in service at that time.

Yes, its job was super specialized. No, it was not worthless; it saved the Coalition massive amounts of headaches and casualties in the air war. Also, no it was not the greatest attack aircraft ever, like the anon above baited you with.

File: uh-1-huey-920-5.jpg (160KB, 919x622px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 919x622px

>no helicopter model has been shot more times in combat than the UH-1 and it's derivatives

WHAT THE FUCK? Who in they're right mind would use these death traps?!

File: 0.jpg (6KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 480x360px

>>31175068
mfw

File: air-to-air-1.jpg (387KB, 4928x2920px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 4928x2920px

>25% loss rate

HAHAHA AMERIKEKS BTFO. Worst. BOMBER. EVER

>>31175187
>>31175215

Notice how we don't actually use those aircraft anymore? That's not a coincidence anon.

>>31174921

None of those come close to the loiter time of an A-10, which can also deliver PGM's from altitude, with more time to acquire with slower speeds.

>>31171429

which the A-10 will struggle to defeat because of its lower ability to regain energy vs a F-16 or even a F-15E.

>>31175187
>>31175187
>UH-1 and it's derivatives have been produced and served in more numbers (over 16,000 - only 2,400 Hinds have been built, for instance) than any other rotary wing aircraft in history

>>31175250
>trying to defend pure shit

Hey, I've got an idea! Let's keep using an aircraft that's been shot down!

What a fantastic idea!

>>31172240

how did the Strike Eagle do?

>>31175250
>(over 16,000 - only 2,400 Hinds have been built, for instance)
And 17,000+ Mi-8/17s

>>31171121

>The Air Force wants to retire an aircraft they've been using since the 1970's and replace it with something newer.

Why is this so hard to accept? Why is this even a debate?

File: 1469749498608.jpg (79KB, 702x1024px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 702x1024px

>>31175275
>People Die When They Are Killed, the post

We build 1000, loose 100: they build 100, loose 99
In your world, our thing is worse somehow (this is wrong)
I bet you voted for Feinstein

>>31175351

memes and emotion.

>>31175355
If it gets shot down then it shouldn't have built in the first place

>>31175366
>If it gets shot down then it shouldn't have built in the first place
Nobody goes to war expecting no losses unless completely retarded, fuckface.

>>31175499
... so the modern American populace, then.

>>31175499
Anything that costs millions of dollars to produce should never be shot down. Ever.

>>31175515
>>31175615
Well, there's definitive shitposting right there.

>>31175649

BANTZ
A
N
T
Z

>>31171121
A-10 would annihilate modern Russian tanks, it's amazing

The GAU-8 would rip through them

>>31175787

and Mexico will pay for a wall. it'll be YUGE.

File: A-10 chan flight High School.jpg (122KB, 850x1040px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 850x1040px

>>31171121
yes, it can still take out modern armor and soak up a lot of damage. Plus it's got a lot of loiter time.

>>31171183
>>31171207
wrong, a A-10 can pop an Abrams, I've confirmed this both a A-10 pilot and a tanker buddy of mine.

>>31176233
>Literally nothing in this post is true
Fucking liar.

>>31171301
source? Because every A-10 that was lost either
1) made it back to base but had to be scrapped
2) protected the pilot and allowed them to eject.

>>31176250
And your cousin works at Google, too.

>>31175800
Fuck off Drumpftard

File: autismlevelstoofar.jpg (46KB, 514x536px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 514x536px

>>31176263
>literally nothing is true.
yes it is faggot. Confirmed by an A-10 pilot, F16 pilot instructor, and (as for the armor defeating capability) a tanker friend I have

File: smugemilia.jpg (45KB, 654x654px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 654x654px

>>31176276
I go to a school with a lot of vets and have been in Air Force circles for a while now. You jelly anon?

>>31176294
YUUUUUUGE

>>31176250
>>31176295

maybe with a Maverick

>>31176309

and i fly fighters for a living.

thing is, i'm actually telling the truth

>>31176270
Read the fuckin' fred, m8

>>31174037
>>31174599

>>31176340
so am I faggot, armor on top of a tank can only get so thick. Hell the TRAINING rounds of the A-10 can punch through 1.5 inches of steel. The actual depleted uranium rounds can go through much more.

As for the pilots I know I met them at Laughlin AFB when I was at an activity there.

As for my tanker friend, as I said I go to college with a lot of vets. We're buddies.

>>31176379
>1.5 inches of steel
You do realize 1.5" of mild steel means fucking nothing in terms of MBT armor, right? Right?

>>31176371
how many A-10 pilots were KIA though? Compared the pilots of the other aircraft.

>>31176379
>As for the pilots I know I met them at Laughlin AFB when I was at an activity there.
>As for my tanker friend, as I said I go to college with a lot of vets. We're buddies.
Jesus. Not even dad works at Nintendo. We're literally on to "this guy I had a beer with this one time and was too drunk to wade away through the spaghetti when I started sperging all over him"

>>31176388
and you realize those are just the training rounds, right? Also who said mild steel?

>>31176399

... read the thread.

>>31176379

Del Rio is a shithole, and >>31176401 is right.

>>31176399
>how many A-10 pilots were KIA though? Compared the pilots of the other aircraft.
ITS LITERALLY IN THOSE FUCKING POSTS.

Reading. Can you into it?

Pilots literally die far more often when losing an A-10 compared to any other operational fized wing USAF combat plane except a B-52.

>>31176399
>>31176416
Shit. My bad. My autism took over my typing for a minute.

The KIA numbers are in this thread:
>>31172751
>>31172759
>>31172769
>>31173196
>>31173432

These two posts specifically:
>>31173496
>>31173740

>>31176401
not really lol
I met pilots at Laughlin, they were our cadre for the week and we got to pick their minds regarding aircraft.

As for the tanker friend I've known him for almost a year now. We had classes together and had lunch very often. Again I picked his mind about this and several other things.

File: 1419848648471.jpg (984KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

984KB, 1920x1200px

>>31171121
for fighting other aircraft, no. its very slow compared to others, in a actual dog fight against a 21st century fighter jet it would be like mike tyson fighting a baby. it is mostly meant for taking out heavy ground targets like tanks, and the occasional infantry. its more of a flying gatling gun then it is a fighter jet.

>>31176411

because rolled homogenous steel armor is the standard for measuring anti-armor penetration. and open source RHAe for a M1 turret is on the order of ~3 feet.

>>31176435
so......what you're saying is that the A-10 has less class A and B mishaps? It does have a slightly higher pilot casualty rate though

>>31176399
>>31176416
>>31176435
>No shit A-10 deathrates are higher
Actually, there have been far fewer A-10s destroyed compared to F-15s or F-16s over their service life (there being far fewer of them overall), which means that death rate is actually even worse than it looks:

>A-10 chance of death per aircraft loss: 51 pilot deaths over 104 total aircraft losses, or a 49% chance of pilot death per aircraft loss
>F-15: 43 pilot deaths (including WSOs in E models/backseaters in B and D models, so that's even worse for the A-10) over 123 aircraft losses, or 35% chance of pilot death per aircraft loss
>F-16: 84 total pilot deaths over 334 total aircraft losses, or a 25% chance of pilot death per aircraft loss

>A-10: 49% chance of death
>F-15: 35% chance of death
>F-16: 25% chance of death

So, yeah. Sucks to be an A-10 pilot if you're worried about surviving a Class A mishap.

Let's take this a step further and look at pilot deaths per 100k flight hours:

>F-15: 43 total Pilot/WSO/Backseater deaths to 6,183,171 total flight hours as of FY2013, so 0.7 pilot deaths per 100 thousand flight hours over aircraft service lifetime.
>F-16: 84 total Pilot/Backseater deaths to 10,084,953 total flight hours as of FY2013, so 0.83 pilot deaths per 100 thousand flight hours.
>A-10: 51 total Pilot deaths to 5,161,601 total flight hours as of FY2013, so 0.997 pilot deaths per 100 thousand flight hours

>F-15: 0.7 pilot deaths per 100k FH
>F-16: 0.83 pilot deaths per 100k FH
>A-10: 0.997 pilot deaths per 100k FH

Tell me again about how rugged and safe it is to fly an A-10 in combat, or even to survive a serious in-flight mishap?

Sources:
http://www.afsc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080114-062.pdf
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-131209-032.pdf
http://www.afsec.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-150116-014.pdf

>>31176450
again, they aren't firing just the training rounds. A combat mix consists of:
1)Depleted uranium
2)Incendiary
3)Training

Not to mention the sheer amount of ammunition in a burst going down range is enough to rip through a tank

>>31176470

in addition to loss of life, limb, or eyesight, a class A or B mishap can be caused by the dollar value of the repair. so being a cheaper aircraft, an A-10 might be less susceptible to totaling up enough damage to trigger a class A/B

>>31176470
>slightly higher
For every two A-10s lost to any cause (including a ground mishap, training accident, etc.) a pilot dies. If you lose your A-10, there's a cunt hair less than 50% chance that you die. For the F-16? Half that chance. For the F-15? only 35%.

So, no. Over the course of Desert Storm, for instance, A-10s were lost or damaged at a much higher rate than other combat aircraft, and every one of those losses carried a greater chance that the pilot was killed.

The titanium tub/flying tank meme needs to die already.

>>31176484
If you don't mind me asking what are the survival rates for other CAS aircraft? Here you're comparing the A-10 to fighters how does it fare against say an Apache or a Cobra?

File: GAU-8_meets_VW_Type_1.jpg (205KB, 1800x1150px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1800x1150px

>>31171183
>>31171207
>>31171535
kek

>>31176495

no it's not. the mil dispersion of a GAU-8 gives a rough estimate of bullet density per burst, and it's simply not enough to do more than F-kill by destroying sensors. it's a pretty fantastic anti-aircraft gun. you don't have to count as many frames as the M61 for a valid kill. too bad you don't have a radar lead-computing gunsight since you don't have a radar

i'll glance through the A/G gun run part of 3-1.Shot Kill tomorrow and see if they have A-10 numbers/if they're unclassified.

>>31176523

it's going to do better than lower and slower aircraft like attack helos which should not be a surprise to anybody.

>>31176551
so should it surprise anybody that fast moving fighters do better than a low slow attack aircraft?

>>31176512
>For the F-16? Half that chance. For the F-15? only 35%.
I should also mention that those numbers include WSO/backseaters, so that higher F-15 number probably has a lot more to do with more two-seaters being in service than the aircraft being inherently more unsafe. A-10 does not have that excuse.

>If you don't mind me asking what are the survival rates for other CAS aircraft?
Read the rest of those posts here >>31176435 or go read that thread. F-15 and F-16 both serviced more CAS than the A-10 by sortie or weapons tonnage dropped in both Desert Storm and Iraq Part Duex. They are literally more of a "CAS aircraft" than the A-10. So did the B-1 for that matter, which also had a lower Pilot Fatal Rate than the A-10.

>Here you're comparing the A-10 to fighters how does it fare against say an Apache or a Cobra?
Comparing fixed wing to rotary wing pilot death rates and mishap rates as if they were equal is pants on head retarded. Far too many variables are substantially different for the numbers to really mean anything.

>>31176379
>armor on top of a tank can only get so thick
There are some interesting projects in that area, prompted by the prevalence of DPICM and smart skeets. There's that weird German spiky armor, and China has been experimenting with roof ERA.

>>31176495
>combat mix
>training rounds
and as for
>Not to mention the sheer amount of ammunition in a burst going down range
You seem to have missed the comments above regarding slant ranges the gun is actually used at. Between the range and being mounted on a moving aircraft, rounds go all over the place so there will be no ripping through anything.

>>31176567
the a10 was designed to do the job cheap
not using costly rockets or guided bombs

>>31176573
meant for >>31176523

>>31176523
>Implying the F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, and B-1B aren't CAS aircraft with lower fratricide rates

>>31176605
>not using costly rockets
GAU-8 bursts are more expensive than unguided rockets

>or guided bombs
They didn't have PGMs in widespread service in 1972 when it first flew. The A-10 is simply the product of the Vietnam way of servicing strike, interdiction and CAS missions. A way that was obsolete by the late 80's.

File: giphy.gif (495KB, 500x317px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 500x317px

>>31176605
Oh boy, I sure can't wait for Summer to end.

>>31176567

>implying people use their brain instead of going
>MUH MK 1 EYEBALL LOW AND SLOW GUN RUN

>>31176573

given the relatively small size of the F-15E community, it's not going to add much to the death rates. also since i'm pretty familiar with every death in the jet, there are at least two occasions where one of the crew lived and one died during ejection: the supersonic overwater inverted ejection at night killed the WSO, and when the jet from the 391st ejected in the Middle East on approach after the pilot got Spatial D the pilot died.

>>31176551
IIRC the A-10 had 5400+ Maverick D shots and gun runs were a statistical anomaly.

>>31176622
>Implying that the B1 isn't the king of fratricide

>>31176646
>given the relatively small size of the F-15E community, it's not going to add much to the death rates. also since i'm pretty familiar with every death in the jet, there are at least two occasions where one of the crew lived and one died during ejection: the supersonic overwater inverted ejection at night killed the WSO, and when the jet from the 391st ejected in the Middle East on approach after the pilot got Spatial D the pilot died.
Don't forget about the F-15B/D models. Also, there are currently 192 active F-15C/Ds in service. There are 257 F-15Es. The mudhen community ain't exactly a "small community" in F-15 terms anymore.

>>31176450
>open source RHAe
Oh am I laffin

Go hang out on Tanknet's armor scientific forum before you ever use that word again. RHAe does not begin to adequately describe how tank armor and penetrators work.

>>31176664
... the B-1 has had one frat incident. ever.

>>31176683

historically speaking, yeah it is.

>>31176688

i don't have time to nerd out about planes and tanks, so give me a flyboy's tl;dr.

>>31176664
B-1: 1 incident, 5 dead.
A-10: Several incidents, at least ten dead.

>>31176688
>RHAe does not begin to adequately describe how tank armor and penetrators work.
Hurr durr I'm not bright enough to understand conversion factors

>>31176704
>historically speaking, yeah it is.
Fine. Fuck it. Here:

>F-15A/B: of the 445 F-15A/Bs built, 61 (13.7%) were B model two seaters.
>F-15C/D: of the 575 C/D models build, 92 (16%) were D model two seaters
>F-15E: 236 total F-15E variants were built

So. 1256 F-15s built, 389 of which were two-seaters. 31% is a statistically and "historically" significant number, anon.

>>31176776

well then, i stand corrected.

i'd still wager that the A/C deaths outweigh the B/D/E deaths due to the missions that you fly in each, but that would just be a gut call. i don't care enough to bet on it.

>>31176688
>Go hang out on Tanknet's armor scientific forum before you ever use that word again. RHAe does not begin to adequately describe how tank armor and penetrators work.
Are you fucking kidding me with this shit? You really think 1.5" steel penetration is anything? Shit, even the M60A1 armor was 10 inches in the front and 3 inches from the sides and back.

Read this, and educate yourself for god's sake.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a522397.pdf

Tested against 10 combat loaded M-47 Pattons (paper armor compared to a modern MBT):
>3 only light damage, combat capability unaffected
>3 M-kills (mobility)
>1 M+F kill (mobility and firepower)
>3 K kills (catastrophic)

Now think about that in the context of modern armor. The A-10 wasn't tearing up T-72s in Desert Storm with it's gun, it was using Mavericks.

>>31176797
Probably not, since it has a 105.5:0 K:D ratio in air to air.

>>31176704

You won't learn shit unless you read some scientific papers, declassified reports, etc.

The reason you won't learn shit is because composite armor uses a variety of different mechanisms in different (often spaced) layers to defeat a projectile.

>>31176726
How come there are Russian HEAT warheads with exotic liners that display the same penetration tracks in proofing against steel blocks as cheaper, more conventional warheads?

The answer: these exotic warheads perform better against the layers of composite armor.

Or the latest M829, which is designed to combat ERA - which it does by having a shorter, fatter DU penetrator with the steel tip to detonate ERA and leave the tip of the DU undamaged.

>>31176879
Use your reading comprehension skills. I wasn't claiming that the GAU-8 would be effective against an Abrams, I was claiming that RHAe is a disingenuous comparison when talking about composite armor

>>31176917
>I was claiming that RHAe is a disingenuous comparison when talking about composite armor
Then suggest a better one. Go on. Show us that 1.5" of steel means jack shit in a modern tank armor context.

>>31176950
How did you get out of high school with reading comprehension this terrible?

>>31176917
>
You won't learn shit unless you read some scientific papers, declassified reports, etc.

The reason you won't learn shit is because composite armor uses a variety of different mechanisms in different (often spaced) layers to defeat a projectile.
Projectiles just like the 30mm DU rounds the GAU-8 fires.

>How come there are Russian HEAT warheads with exotic liners that display the same penetration tracks in proofing against steel blocks as cheaper, more conventional warheads?
>The answer: these exotic warheads perform better against the layers of composite armor.
>Or the latest M829, which is designed to combat ERA - which it does by having a shorter, fatter DU penetrator with the steel tip to detonate ERA and leave the tip of the DU undamaged.
None of these are 30mm rounds.

>>31176962
And now the ad hominems start because he has no answer to the simple fact that the GAU-8 is absolutely worthless against a modern MBT.

>>31176980

No, you're just dumb

See >>31176917
> I wasn't claiming that the GAU-8 would be effective against an Abrams, I was claiming that RHAe is a disingenuous comparison when talking about composite armor.

You are getting worked up over nothing. Are you stupid?

>>31176250
You got lied to, anon.

it will cause some serious *ting ting*'s, but it won't beat modern tank armor.

>>31176797
>i'd still wager that the A/C deaths outweigh the B/D/E deaths due to the missions that you fly in each, but that would just be a gut call. i don't care enough to bet on it.

41 F-15A losses
6 F-15B losses
56 F-15C losses
8 F-15D losses
16 F-15E losses

So B/D/E losses make up 23.6% of all losses. So the single seaters make up some ground statistically, but 23.6% is still a very significant number. It essentially adds up to an extra 23.6% bodies present during Class A mishaps (which might account for some of the 30% jump in pilot death rate from F-16 to F-15).

>>31176917
>Use your reading comprehension skills. I wasn't claiming that the GAU-8 would be effective against an Abrams
Yes. You literally did claim this. See >>31176250
>wrong, a A-10 can pop an Abrams, I've confirmed this both a A-10 pilot and a tanker buddy of mine.

You're full of shit, junior. Did you just flat fucking forget that the shit you type stays in the thread?

>>31176997
>No, you're just dumb
>See >>31176917
>> I wasn't claiming that the GAU-8 would be effective against an Abrams, I was claiming that RHAe is a disingenuous comparison when talking about composite armor.
>You are getting worked up over nothing. Are you stupid?
see >>31177049
and fuck off

>>31177049
inb4 it wasn't me

>>31176950
>M1A1: 800mm/31.49" vs APSFDS, 1300mm/51.18" vs HEAT

>>31177140
kek

File: reply chains are so hard to follow.png (27KB, 1200x375px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1200x375px

>>31177055
>>31177049

Have a (You) on the house

>>31177228
>>31177068
Called it.

Nice shoop, retard

File: what shoop dumbass.png (320KB, 1873x961px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1873x961px

>>31177257
Congratulations, you look like even more of an idiot than you did before

>>31177297
This proves... what? That you own an HTML editor?

>>31177336
There's this magical thing called an id field.

If you pull up your page source, you will find that you are wrong and a dumbass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT9k7mGze4I

They seem pretty effective vs Skynet HK's.

>>31177361
So... You're saying that within my page source script on MY SIDE, it will somehow prove that you were not samefagging?

Do tell me more.

ITT: Armchair Generals General

>>31177385
>He's proving me wrong with facts and numbers, better start defaming his identity!
This is always hilarious on an anonymous image board.

On /tg/ the joke is that every poster is one guy typing really fast.

>>31177442
>>He's proving me wrong with facts and numbers, better start defaming his identity!
are you kidding me with this bullshit? in a thread where the people you're arguing against are posting >>31174037
>>31174599
>>31176484
>>31176512
>>31176573
>>31176715
>>31176648
>>31176776
>>31176879
>>31177140
And, what? You give no sources. Zero facts. Just shitposting.

Unfucking believable.

>>31177442
>On /tg/ the joke is that every poster is one guy typing really fast.
We all know the only people on /tg/ are you, me, and the shitposter.
And I'm starting to suspect you're the shitposter.

>>31172066
Bull shit

>>31171121
I say scap the big gun and put in four 20mm guns so it can strafe ground targets like an X wing.

>>31177385
Yes. That's how the id field works. I know it's a strange notion that multiple people might find you stupid.

>>31177035

are they just hull losses or fatalities? to take an example: Lt Col Moose Fontenot had a suspected hypocapnia event while ferrying a F-15D back from depot. he was alone in the jet. but yeah, just nit-picking right now. those stats are really interesting and informative.

>>31177651
>That's how the id field works.
Jesus. You really are one dumb motherfucker, aren't you?

>>31177692
>are they just hull losses or fatalities?
Total losses to all causes VS total pilot/WSO/backseater/whatever deaths (not including ancillary fatalities like people killed at an airshow, etc). Original numbers here >>31176435 with sources.

>>31177697
Put up or shut up, bitch nigga

>>31177651
>That's how the id field works
If that's how it works, then you can point out every single post I made in this thread, right? Go ahead and do that now. If that's really how it works, all you need to do is open your source window, ctrl+F my ID and it'll give you every post I made. So do it. Prove it.

Meanwhile, I'll be over here laughing my ass off at how stupid you are.

>>31172066
playing pretend is fun but this site is for people over the age of 18 faggot

>>31176495
>combat mix
They'd have to be firing unicorn horn dipped in fairy dust to get through three feet of anything.

>>3117664
>IIRC the A-10 had 5400+ Maverick D shots and gun runs were a statistical anomaly.
>Over the course of the campaign, they expended about one million rounds from their 30 mm cannon, 5255 TV and IIR AGM-65 missiles (62 percent of the total were IIR missiles)
Something like 200 rounds per Maverick during Desert Storm. I don't think it was anomaly. Bombs were used more often.
>19384 Mk-82 and Mk-84 bombs, 7032 older cluster bomb units (CBU-52/58/71 and Mk-20 Rockeye), 746 CBU-87, and 5488 flares for night operations.

>>31176495
>Not to mention the sheer amount of ammunition in a burst going down range is enough to rip through a tank
If the rounds can't penetrate it doesn't matter how many rounds you pour on unless you can make them all hit the exact same spot until they literally grind away the armor plate.

>>31176449
>Attack Aircraft
>fighting other aircraft

I wish the fucking /v/ Battlefield generations would just fucking die.

>>31171449
>It was when the plane was first planed.

But that's false.

>>31176484
The story isn't that simple though. You'd need to go into why the pilot died. They're different aircraft with different roles and associated risks. An A-10 will loiter over a target longer in a CAS mission, an F-15/F-16 simply can not.

On a different note; what other aircraft could do the A-10's job as well or better, without being less safe?

>>31171937
Danger close refers to the proximity of dropped munitions to friendlies, not the proximity of the aircraft itself.

>>31177560
>>31177775
>"argument" consists entirely of "nuh-uh!" and namecalling
>as expected from A-10 fanboys

>>31176250

>30mm gun had problems into making his way through stationary T-62 tanks,despite multiple passes and fucking no AA defense raping their asses
>armchair generals said whatever we'll use them in a one way ticket to graze some commie mbts if SHTF
>can now pop Abrams at ease
>went to check some Shermans that were used as targets for DU round testings at Quirra during Cold War and some of those tanks were still intact,full of holes and more radioactive than the entire Chernobyl area,but pretty fine for being cheesed to the ground

>>31175236
F-35 can, also regarding speeds, see:
>>31173443
>>31173483
>>31173564

>>31180547
Don't you love how A-10fags just mindlessly blather out incorrect information, so sure it's correct without ever bothering to check, in an attempt to convince people that the platform isn't obsolete?

>>31180547
The A-10 cruises straight and level and maintains full lift with a combat load at 200mph, F-16s,18s,15s, ect. literally fly nose high and burn more fuel and lose lift efficiency and fuel economy, all just to struggle to maintain this low speed. Normal straight and level flight and speeds needed to provide full lift for these aircraft are above 300, which is well above the low speeds the A-10 can cruise at.

You clearly know nothing about flight or physics if you think a nose high plane teetering on a stall is at all the same as another plane maintaining full lift with no problem.

>>31180651
>Implying flying super slow is a good thing in modern conflicts with ultraprecise munitions
>Implying prop planes can't do the A-10's job in uncontested airspace better and cheaper

>>31173889
You must be Dutch.

>>31180615
What's the matter son, your wee little cock can't handle this much BRRRRRRRRRRRT

>>31180692
>flying slow is stupid
>let's use slow prop planes instead
>even though the A-10 can fly at 20,000ft and drop PGM's too

File: 1466274077593.jpg (2MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3648x2736px

Well the A-10 can infact mobility kill a M1 abrams through the hull sides near the engine compartment since it is only about 30mm thick there. If it does a run from behind the M1 then it would mission kill it due to rounds would hit the engine compartment and the turret bustle ammo. There is no chance that it would be able to penetrate the crew compartment from the sides due to how it is constructed.

If I understand it right, the hull sides are 30mm thick RHA, then additional layer of 30mm RHA is welded on the hull sides covering the crew compartment which also provides additional bonus then having that area thicker but something called dual hardness, two plates of the same hardness would increase the protection if welded together. Then after that there is the side skirts and the skirts covering the crew compartment are significantly thicker then the ones cover the engine compartment.

The reason why is to give the M1 abrams good protection from enemy fire and render its 60 degree frontal arch very resistant to penetration. It is kinda similar to how the Leopard 2 is protected. Tho this only cover the crew compartment and not the whole side hull but is better to have a mobility killed tank then a complete loss of crew.

>>31180788
But, that's the point. The A-10 is shitty at doing things the way literally every other strike platform does it (F-15E, F-16, F-18, B-1, F-35, MQ1/9...) and stupid expensive compared to the prop planes like Super Taco and OV-10 Bronco in the flight profile it was designed for.

File: this thing landed.jpg (481KB, 1400x947px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1400x947px

>>31171697
>555-come on now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAskaDt21_Y

>>31171863
>>31174895

for any uninitiated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jabjgY6B2nM

>>31179706
>The story isn't that simple though. You'd need to go into why the pilot died.
No, you really don't unless you're writing a book. The simple fact remains that for whatever statistical reason, the A-10 is more dangerous to its pilots in case of mishap than any other attack or bomber aircraft operated by the USAF (with the exception of the B-52, whose larger crew numbers skew the picture since every incident can kill anywhere from 6 to 13 crew members).

Detailed analysis of all incidents and deaths would, of course, be interesting and revelatory as to the nature and mechanisms of this higher level of mortality. However, it would not change the fact that the elevated mortality exists in direct contravention of the popular wisdom within the media and some on /k/ that the A-10 is somehow safer or more apt to complete CAS and strike missions safely.

>They're different aircraft with different roles and associated risks.
Again, irrelevant to the simple fact that IF a loss incident of any sort occurs, an A-10 pilot is less likely to survive it than his colleagues in different USAF aircraft.

>An A-10 will loiter over a target longer in a CAS mission, an F-15/F-16 simply can not.
This is irrelevant to the matter of pilot deaths per aircraft lost. You are describing RATE and CAUSE of loss, which is also not in the A-10s favor according to combat data. The issue above directly addresses the given that there is a loss, and the likelihood of the pilot to survive such loss.

>what other aircraft could do the A-10's job as well or better, without being less safe?
According to mishap statistics and combat data, anything else in the USAF inventory (but not the Tornado GR.1 used in the Gulf War by allies): F-15E, F-16, B-1, B-52, nocturnal AC-130, etc.

>>31180651
>The A-10 cruises straight and level and maintains full lift with a combat load at 200mph
I'm really confused as to why anyone would argue that this is a good thing in the modern battlespace. PGMs and modern targeting systems obviate the need to fly low and slow like that (it's not stable at 200 knots at 30,000ft - that cruise profile is for lower, thicker atmosphere) and it only exposes the A-10 to more risk. If it is engaged by ground based A2AD systems, it has far less energy available to defeat them flying at 200 knots at 10,000ft instead of 350-400 knots at 40,000 ft.

>>31180730
On the contrary flaccid brrrrtcuck, only BIG EXPLOSIVE KABOOMS can turn me on.

>>31180824
>the problem is the A-10 can do everything an F16/15E can do, as well as drop low and be a pure attack craft

>somehow this is a problem

>>31180788
>the A-10 can fly at 20,000ft and drop PGM's too
And still be exposed to even Vietnam-era SAMs at that altitude.

>>31180806
>Well the A-10 can infact mobility kill a M1 abrams through the hull sides near the engine compartment since it is only about 30mm thick there.
You are ignoring the effects of deflection due to track/wheels plus the effects of the munitions striking at an oblique angle. Not to mention completely ignoring the armored track skirts. In the M47 tests, the A-10 often failed to achieve a mobility kill when attacking the sides of that tank and the M1 is better protected from the sides.

>then it would mission kill it due to rounds would hit the engine compartment
If it couldn't accomplish this against an M47, I cannot imagine an Abrams would be MORE vulnerable in rear hull top armor.

>and the turret bustle ammo
This is just silly. Are you saying the blowout panels are unarmored?

>>31180940
>>the problem is the A-10 can do everything an F16/15E can do
It cannot. It has a much higher pilot workload, a lack of ground scanning radar and lower service ceiling than those aircraft. Also, it is far more vulnerable to SAMs at any altitude.

>as well as drop low and be a pure attack craft
I'm not sure what you mean by "pure attack craft" but in a modern context an attack mission involves using sensor and datalink advantages to put PGMs directly on target from high altitude and/or standoff ranges so the aircraft is exposed to counter-force as little as possible. Of all the attack craft in the US military's current service, the A-10 is the worst at this particular job.

If by "pure attack craft" you mean an aircraft which is forced to approach attack and CAS missions using Vietnam-era tactics, and be exposed to the same elevated risks, then you are correct.

File: 1460281148105.jpg (124KB, 1578x684px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1578x684px

>>31180946
>This is just silly. Are you saying the blowout panels are unarmored?
40mm thick.

>>31180989
>higher pilot work load, can't fly as high
>literally performs the same strike missions as Vipers and Mudens at the same altitube, with a better avionics suite than an F-16, and the same HOTAS controls as an F-15E

>>31181575
>>literally performs the same strike missions
Nope. Incapable of, among other things, missions which require ground scanning radar, like moving target interdiction.

>at the same altitude
my sides.

>with a better avionics suite than an F-16
Holy shit. Are event trying?

>and the same HOTAS controls as an F-15E
Without most of the built in sensors and designators or a WSO.

File: high impact invasion.jpg (96KB, 400x346px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 400x346px

>>31171513
>Color the bottom of the tank green and yourself brown--you dumb shit an A-10 will not fit underneath a T-62 tank and remain airborne.

Every fucking time.

>>31174037
Wait wait wait wait wait wait WAIT

hold up

are you telling me

seriously wait up a minute

are you telling me that the plane

which flies super low to the ground and at incredibly slow speeds

hold on, stay with me

that this plane............... had more losses than the planes which flew at supersonic speeds at high altitudes?

is that what you're saying?

>>31182153
WE WUZ CAS

It's a "/k/ forgets the rule of cool" episode

>>31182208
>It's a "/k/ forgets the rule of cool" episode
There are grownups on /k/ and even if there weren't, most peoples idea of "cool" doesn't involve an aircraft which is SAM-bait on the best of days using outdated tactics and hardware to prosecute a specialized mission that even the F-111, an aircraft in service a decade before the A-10, performed far, far better than it during Desert Storm.

>muh brrrrrrt
Yeah? Well, the Davy Crockett made a fuckhuge boom but that didn't make it any less fucking retarded.

>>31181642
>>at the same altitude
>my sides.

It looks like you really have no idea what the A-10C is or the missions it's been performing and its capabilities, you also seem to think the F-16 has ground radar, and that both the 15 and 16 rely on it any way, they don't.

But your ignorance is typical of the average /k/ fag.

>>31182429
>It looks like you really have no idea what the A-10C is or the missions it's been performing and its capabilities
It has a service ceiling 3/4 what the mudhen has, and almost operates at altitudes below half of what the mudhen's combat cruising altitude is.

>you also seem to think the F-16 has ground radar
This was on the fucking F-16A, you shit-spackled moron. It's even more sophisticated now:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
>It has four operating frequencies within the X band, and provides four air-to-air and seven air-to-ground operating modes for combat, even at night or in bad weather.

>that both the 15 and 16 rely on it any way
So... your argument is that neither the F-15 or F-16 ever use ground scanning radar as part of their sensor/targeting procedures? Have never used it in combat?

Just when I thought A-10 fags could not get any more retarded. Holy shit.

>But your ignorance is typical of the average /k/ fag.
Why the fuck do you even try?

>>31182429
>you also seem to think the F-16 has ground radar, and that both the 15 and 16 rely on it any way, they don't.
Dumb fuck is fucking dumb.

AN/APG-66
>It has four operating frequencies within the X band, and provides four air-to-air and seven air-to-ground operating modes for combat, even at night or in bad weather.

APG-66(V)2A
>AN/APG-66(V)2 with a new combined signal and data processor that provides seven times the speed and 20 times the memory of the older radar computer and digital signal processor line replaceable units. In this new variant, the displayed resolution in ground-mapping mode is quadrupled, and is reported to be close to that offered by SAR techniques.

AN/APG-68
>The APG-68 has greater range and resolution, as well as 25 operating modes, including ground-mapping, Doppler beam-sharpening, ground moving target indication, sea target, and track while scan (TWS) for up to 10 targets. The Block 40/42's APG-68(V)1 model added full compatibility with Lockheed Martin Low-Altitude Navigation and Targeting Infra-Red for Night (LANTIRN) pods, and a high-PRF pulse-Doppler track mode to provide continuous-wave radar (CW) target illumination for semi-active radar-homing (SARH) missiles like the AIM-7 Sparrow.
>The Advanced Block 50/52 (or 50+/52+) are equipped with the APG-68(V)9 radar, with a 30% greater air-to-air detection range and a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode for high-resolution mapping and target detection-recognition. In August 2004, Northrop Grumman were contracted to upgrade the APG-68 radars of Block 40/42/50/52 aircraft to the (V)10 standard, providing all-weather autonomous detection and targeting for Global Positioning System (GPS)-aided precision weapons, SAR mapping and terrain-following radar (TF) modes, as well as interleaving of all modes.[40]

The F-16 has and has always had ground radar capability.

>>31182153

First batch of attackers to ef up with strips were just RAF and AMI Tornado flights whom just did it for the lulz of flying in the midst of AAA when the air superiority was still an if

Also F-111 and F-15E did more plinking and busting than the A-10

>>31182153
It's almost as if low and slow is a meme and a good way to take heavy casualties in every air war since Vietnam.

>>31182624
>>31182626
A-10 is perfect against insurgents which is what we are currently fighting. You can't deny this, Lockheed.

>>31182666
Nope, it's overpriced and super expensive to operate compared to drones or prop-planes.

>>31182681
A-10 has a larger payload than both of those, longer loiter time than one of them, plays a vital role in S&R which the other two can't, flies faster than both, and actually intimidates the enemy.

>>31182737
All those things that you praise the A-10 for, the B-1 does better. It also has use in a conventional conflict and the highest kill count of CAS assets.

>>31182764

>B1
>High altitude bomber
>Performing QRF CAS

0/10 troll

>>31182775
Are you retarded? There's always either an F-15E or B-1 up and ready, and they both have longer loiter times. Why would the A-10 be any better as a QRF asset, considering how much longer it takes to get there?

>>31182791

Because I, as a JTAC with 7 years' TIS and two trips to Hindu Kush amusement park, have experienced it.

>>31182806
Oh, look. His dad works at nintendo.

Tell you what, junior. You can post your redacted DD 214 or your redacted mil ID, time stamped of course, or fuck off.

If you were a JTAC you could provide some reason why it was actually so, with factual, sourced, logical argument. Simply saying "because I said so" does not fly when a great many of the other anons here also bought tickets to that particular rodeo.

>>31182775
>>B1
>>High altitude bomber
Lel what.

The B-1 was designed as a low level ground-following bomber you dolt. Just because it can fly high over non-static anti-air doesn't mean it doesn't have top-notch terrain-avoidance systems.

Also
>implying you have to be low to provide CAS

>>31182877
>>31182764
tell me how a B-1 does search and rescue

>>31182844
>>31182844
My VAC card proves nothing. But with your Sperg level, i doubt this is an argument that'll be substantive in any way. I guess you'll have to take my word for it. Or don't, I don't care, this is 4chan.

>>31182901
Have you never fucking seen what a targeting pod is capable of? No wonder you're so mindbogglingly ignorant about this topic.

>>31182666

Look the A-10 for me can even work as a butler,but as soon someone catches a good load of manpads and uses them without praising allah the A-10 is no more

>>31182901
>B1!
>Hit!
>Ok we've found them

>>31182925
>Translation: I can't prove I was because I wasn't.

Thanks for clearing that up for everyone.

>>31182925
>My VAC card proves nothing. But with your Sperg level, i doubt this is an argument that'll be substantive in any way. I guess you'll have to take my word for it. Or don't, I don't care, this is 4chan.
So... you can't provide a single reasoned argument on the subject, but you were supposedly a JTAC? My hairy white ass. Go fuck yourself.

>>31182901
>tell me how a B-1 does search and rescue
Jesus christ. For a former JTAC you're about 8 kinds of shit-stupid. Are you completely ignorant of what targeting pods, optics and sensors do these days?

>>31182948
>>B1!
>>Hit!
>>Ok we've found them

>meanwhile the A-10 has a higher record of friendly fire incidents and casualties

Tell me more, oh anon.

>>31182566
>The F-16 has and has always had ground radar capability.


Hahaha.

No.

File: cheesus.png (407KB, 700x629px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 700x629px

>>31182970

>you see that mountain?
>yes?
>good,cause you can blue on blue it

>>31183006
>Hahaha.
>No.
Are you legitimately learning disabled? He just provided sources. Provide a source to the contrary or fuck off.

>>31183006

they bombed Osirak using Atomic Handball software,so they indeed had a ground radar capability

>>31183020
This is the reason we keep having A-10 threads, btw. No matter how many quality sources you cite, no matter how much you point out the inaccuracies they spout, it is immediately forgotten for memechanting "brrrrt" and "muh low and slow" or "muh armor".

>>31183049
>sources
>literally lists none
>claims the F-16 has always ground radar
>it hasn't

>>31183077
>quotes wrong post

>>31183077
See >>31182517
>>31182566

In this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon
source alone, it mentions the ground scanning capabilities of each iteration of F-16 radar with links to their sub-pages and more detailed information on each.

>>31182566
provided direct quotes from these pages.

Go fuck yourself.

Here are some more, since you're so clearly fucking retarded:
http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Northrop_Grumman_(Westinghouse)_AN/APG-66
>enhanced air-ground and ground mapping modes
>AN/APG-68 exclusive modes include medium resolution mapping, ground target MTI, and ground moving, target track in air-to-ground mode, and track-while scan, ground moving
>and SAR mode. SAR enables high-resolution ground mapping for 24-hour, all-weather precision strike capability

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/an-apg-66.htm
> the AN/APG-66 air-to-air and air-to-ground radar

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/ANApg68/Pages/default.aspx
>The APG-68(V)9 enables engagement of air-to-air and air-to-surface threats with greater accuracy and at greater ranges than legacy F-16 fire control radars.

http://duotechservices.com/7-improvements-the-apg-68-offered-the-f-16-fighting-falcon
>The F-16 was originally equipped with the AN/APG-66 fire control radar. This medium range pulse doppler radar had a range up to 150 km with four air-to-air and seven air-to-ground operating modes for combat, even at night or in poor weather conditions.
>High-resolution mapping and target detection recognition – the look-down mode uses a medium doppler waveform and signal processing that improves target detection, even with heavy clutter.
>25 operating modes – the additional operating modes include ground mapping, ground moving target mode, specialist ship mode for maritime operations, and track-while-scan of up to 10 targets simultaneously.
>enables high resolution ground mapping for the F-16

>>31183172
Hahahaha no
Where are the sources ?
Give proofs
BRRRRRRRRTTTTTTRRRTRR LOW AND SLOW BITCHES

>>31183077

the first F-16 version were meant to have a limited A2G capability.

Now I don't remember when the kikes bombed Saddam's nuclear facility,if they modified radar software or just used what they had,which basically something like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX-iUqyUhfY

And it works like the bomb targeting reticule on Ace Combat games,so the bomb will fall where that thingy was aiming during launch

Those were F-16A block 5 or 10 can't remember

I could be wrong cause I don't want to search on my books but straight after this Lockeed started the AF-16 CAS program,and tested some equipment on a bunch of airframes Pave Penny pod included.

Before that a single F-16B FSD was equipped and went to trials with SEAD equipment,it had a couple of jammers mounted in place of Sidewinder rails and a modified launcher for Shrike and possibly was compatible with Standard ARM missiles too.

Then it was the time of the F-16XL which was also equipped with dumb bombs,Mavs and whatever fitted in.

They chose to not tamper with them so both CAS and XL trials were just some lessons learned and the equipment or mods were used on the upcoming F-16 blocks

So it always had some limited A2G capability which was slowly upgraded after each batch

>>31183200
>the first F-16 version had A2G capability.
FTFY.

See >>31183172
realize the original AN-APG-66 had 7 air-to-ground modes, which has been improved with each iteration
and fuck off.

>>31183200
>the first F-16 version were meant to have a limited A2G capability.
The YF-16, maybe. When it was redesigned as the F-16 Ground strike capability was a key requirement.

>>31183216


Jeez I know,even during prototype trials and FSD trials they mounted and tested GBU 10/12/16 whatever on those airframes,but it doesn't mean it was a fucking war machine ready to bomb the fuck out of everyone,especially during Desert Storm in which the smartest ordnance they dropped were just Mavs,and anti radar missiles,everything else was in form of dumb bombs

I'm not saying tits about his radar

>>31183269

even F-15 could carry and deliver dumb bombs and they barely used them 'cept for saudis

>>31183326
>I'm not saying tits about his radar
The radar was the entire point, genius.

See >>31182429
>It looks like you really have no idea what the A-10C is or the missions it's been performing and its capabilities, you also seem to think the F-16 has ground radar, and that both the 15 and 16 rely on it any way, they don't.
which kicked off the curbstomping above.
Read the thread next time.

>but it doesn't mean it was a fucking war machine ready to bomb the fuck out of everyone,especially during Desert Storm in which the smartest ordnance they dropped were just Mavs,
When the F-16 entered service, it was more accurate with dumb bombs than any other aircraft in USAF service, thanks to its FC computer. In Desert Storm, there were a very limited number of aircraft dropping PGMs: F-111s, F-117s and a limited number of F-15Es and F-14Ds. IIRC, there were only about 100 PGM laser designator kits for aircraft in the entire theater.

File: F-4D_435th_TFS_with_Pave_Knife_laser_pod_1973[1].jpg (995KB, 1385x951px) Image search: [Google]

995KB, 1385x951px

>>31183385
The LITENING pod was actually designed and built for both F-15E and F-16, the latter being the reason they were commissioned in such a compact package compared to older systems.

Pictured: Pave Knife, a laser designator from Vietnam.

>>31183385
>The radar was the entire point, genius.

as you need a radar to deliver a bomb if you have a software whom just displays information on your HUD and when you have the sights on target all you have to do CJ,is just to release the bomb and the bomb will magically score a perfect hit

Also as if the A-10C comes with a radar,even more the N/A-10B had a radar on a pod,project was killed cause nightly brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt had a side effect of waking up the entire world but who cares

>>31183430
Very good. Now go read about how many were actually ready for Desert Storm.

Oh... That's right. None of them. They weren't delivered until 1994 or later.

The LANTRIN pod, however, was available in very small numbers but not yet F-16 integrated. Only the F-15E and F-14B/D were at that point.

>>31172859
killing friendlies is a good reason to talk shit apparently, the world loves us

>>31183464
I don't even know what this is trying to say.

>>31183483
Derp, got them mixed up. Meant LANTIRN.