Future of A-10

>>31837977
The A-10 is leaving service. The replacement is multiroles. That is the fate of the A-10.

>>31837991

That's not what I've heard.

>>31837993
From whom?

They extended the time of service for Syria. The plan is still to replace it.

Why would anyone bother to "evolve" the A-10? The entire design philosophy is horrifically outdated. PGMs were the last nail in the coffin.

>>31837991
>>31838008
Why are you taking such obvious shitposting seriously?

>>31838008

We're developing a new fighter for an enemy that doesn't even exist.

Syria will be a war of attrition and A-10s, if used, will play a big role. F35's wont. But I think Clinton will mass produce the F35 and turn Syria into Vietnam like Johnson did with Bell helicopter.

>>31838108
I almost thought he might just be stupid, but I'm not sure.

I know people like this in real life who spout the exact same type of garbage seriously. Too many shitty Facebook memes.

>>31838115
You couldn't be any fucking stupider if you tried.

File: 1476930660746m.jpg (110KB, 1024x670px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1024x670px

I got her future right here.

>>31838169

What, you think F35's against Russian anti-air in Syria will blow over well?

>>31837991
>The A-10 is leaving service.
*HEY HEY*
*MY MY*
*BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT WILL NEVER DIE*

http://www.defensetech.org/2016/10/28/air-force-flying-10s-indefinitely/

File: 49279757.jpg (38KB, 303x311px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 303x311px

>>31838228
Did you read the article, Phil?

The Air Force still wants to retire it, and the chucklefucks in Congress like McCain are forcing them to keep the aircraft in service.

They're preparing to maintain them for as long as possible because they doubt that Congress will let them retire it, considering they've tried like 5 times.

Tell me what an A-10 does that other teen multiroles can't do just as well, if not better. Note that your ebin kek BRRT LOL :^) memes don't count.

>>31838214
>What, you think F35's against Russian anti-air in Syria will blow over well?
>Implying A-10s would survive any contact with real anti-air

File: Tips Top Hat.gif (414KB, 315x176px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 315x176px

>>31839182

>Tell me what an A-10 does that other teen multiroles can't do just as well,

>Effectively target and destroy moving, camouflaged, or dug-in troops, artillery, armor, and armored personnel carriers.

>Remain within visual range of friendly forces and targets to facilitate responsiveness to ground forces and minimize re-attack times.

>Conduct close air support beneath low cloud ceilings and in reduced visibilities at low airspeeds in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.

>Enable the pilot and aircraft to survive attacks stemming from small arms, machine guns, man-portable air-defense systems, and lower caliber anti-aircraft artillery organic or attached to enemy ground forces and maneuver units.

>The ability to operate from unprepared dirt, grass, and narrow road runways and to generate high sortie rates under these austere conditions.

>The ability to safely and effectively conduct troops-in-contact/danger close missions or missions in close proximity to civilians in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.

Talking about the A-10 is treason. The Air Force said so.

I hope an "operational" F-35 gets pointlessly shot down over Syria. I just think the Chinese can do a better job at the $400K helmet than we can.

>>31839245
>Effectively target and destroy moving, camouflaged, or dug-in troops, artillery, armor, and armored personnel carriers.
Every multirole does that just fine.

>Remain within visual range of friendly forces and targets to facilitate responsiveness to ground forces and minimize re-attack times.
Bullshit and outdated.

>Conduct close air support beneath low cloud ceilings and in reduced visibilities at low airspeeds in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.
The two 'Hogs lost and 10 grounded in one day's assault on the Republican Guard would like a word with you.

>Enable the pilot and aircraft to survive attacks stemming from small arms, machine guns, man-portable air-defense systems, and lower caliber anti-aircraft artillery organic or attached to enemy ground forces and maneuver units.
Even A-10s don't fly like that these days. And they aren't as durable as you think they are.

>The ability to operate from unprepared dirt, grass, and narrow road runways and to generate high sortie rates under these austere conditions.
You mean to make up for being slow and having a pathetic combat radius.

>The ability to safely and effectively conduct troops-in-contact/danger close missions or missions in close proximity to civilians in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.
What are high-precision sniper pods and PGMs?

File: 1472262034408.png (1MB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x720px

>>31839280

>Moving the goalposts, the post

>>31839293
Nice try, more like correcting a completely ignorant, outdated moron.

>>31839345

You asked what an A-10 does better than multi-roles, and I provided an answer. It doesn't matter whether or not you believe those things are important or not, because that was never part of the original question.

>>31839407
Except you were wrong on every count.

>>31839415

Care to explain how?

>>31838262
>The Air Force still wants to retire it
They've hated it since the Reagan Administration. Goes against the 'not a pound for air to ground' orthodoxy. And yet BRRRT endures.

And if that senile old fart RINO McCain is helping to keep the A-10 in the air, then that is one last service he can render his nation before he shuffles off to Buffalo.

>>31839436

It's their own damn fault. They came up with the A-10 specifically to steal CAS away from Army Aviation.

>>31839436
I heard that the Army wants to pick them up

>>31839428
...I literally did. In the post you dismissed as "goalpost moving". Without understanding what goalpost moving actually is.

>>31839531

>What can the A-10 do better than other planes?
>*list things the A-10 does better than other plane*
>BUT THOSE THINGS DON'T MATTER

That's what moving the goal-posts is.

>>31839436
>Phil chimes in just so he can reinforce how dumb he is in /k/'s eyes
Yeah, no. It barely had a role as of introduction to service, and was rendered completely obsolete by technical advances.

>>31839445
"Keep" technically. By congressional demand to have a "CAS" platform and kill the AH56.

>>31839459
Nope. That's an insane amount of budget, MOSs, facilities, and expertise to suddenly acquire on an airframe that's not getting any younger.

>>31839428
He literally just did.

The doctrine of "low and slow" has been obsolete since PGMs started being a thing, and the Gulf War showed beyond the shadow of a doubt that the doctrine the A-10 was designed around was obsolete. PGMs can do the job better, faster, and more safely than the A-10 can, and, while the A-10 can serve as a PGM truck, there's plenty of other platforms that do that job far better.

>>31839546
Bullshit it is.

"It does these completely outdated and/or stupid things" is not "better."

>>31839562
Like the F-35, which can carry both more munitions and a wider variety.

>>31839428
Stop being such a fucking autist, the A10 is great as a mascot, but that's about it. It's completely impractical in any war save for low intensity conflicts. Hell, its fucking 30mm DU penetrators can only go through 70mm of RHA at 1km. It wouldve had trouble even penetrating T-62s from the rear, which are the tanks it would've been facing at its peak in the Fulda Gap 50 fucking years ago. With the addition of smart munitions, there is literally no reason for a CAS aircraft to go "low and slow". Gun runs are much less effective at actually killing the enemy than say, 2 Mk 83 JDAMs.

>B-but muh flying tank
Why would any sane pilot want to be in range of a fuckload of Pantsir-S1s and Buk missiles? No plane can shrug off a 150lb warhead coming in a mach 3, or two 30mm cannons firing at 2500 rpm each. Do you honestly believe that a squadron of A-10s could even come close to a russian armored column without getting its shit pushed in by the hordes of AA they have attached to them?

File: Capture.png (33KB, 624x327px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 624x327px

>>31839562

>Implying that Type 1 control isn't the highest quality of control

>>31839595

>It's completely impractical in any war save for low intensity conflicts

Stop this fucking bullshit. The A-10 was designed for the battlefield of the Cold War. It was no designed for low intensity conflicts. It was designed specifically to go where the battle was most intense and tear shit up.

>>31839245

ALL of these things can be done by the F-35.

>>31839656
More expensive platform that's more expensive prr sortie.

File: 6355131485_621c651e7f_b.jpg (114KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1024x680px

>>31839656

Just not as well as the A-10.

http://www.businessinsider.com/a-10-always-better-than-f-35-for-close-air-support-2015-4

>Interviewed at Luke Air Force Base, by Christian Sundsdal, Maj. John Wilson, an F-35 pilot with an F-16 background explained that anA-10 Thunderbolt II will always be better at close air support (CAS) than the F-35 because it was designed to perform that kind of mission.

And there you have it. The A-10 will always be better at CAS because it was designed specifically for that mission whereas the F-35 was not.

File: Capture 2.png (54KB, 649x453px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 649x453px

>>31839564

The USAF manual for CAS specifically says that the ground controllers should make "every effort possible" to establish visual contact with the attacking aircraft.

>>31839624
Did you even read past that fucking line? It's gun would've had trouble penetrating fucking T-62s from the rear, not even mentioning T-72s or T-90s. It was designed to slay shit in the Fulda Gap, sure, but it's not in the least practical today. Any aircraft can take on the role of a tankbuster thanks to PGMs and AGMs. The F-35 and the F-15E can carry more than it, while doing pretty much anything that matters better. Stop fantasizing, the A10 is useful for little more than blowing up sandniggers with its GAU-8

File: A-10_firing_AGM-65[1].jpg (499KB, 1797x1179px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 1797x1179px

>>31839753

>The A-10's only anti-tank weapon is the GAU8.

>>31839604
>Implying better datalinks allowing two-way ground and air target confirmation and pilot link into ground SA data won't be superior

>>31839772
>Implying it got close to the F-111's tank kill count

>>31839789

>Moving the goalposts again

What the fuck does the F-111 have to do with this?

>>31839604
It isn't, it's the most pedantic / has the highest requirements. For example, why does the JTAC / FAC(A) need to visually acquire the aircraft if he can see its weapons feed?

>>31839772
If you're not going to use the 1 thing unique to the A-10, why use the A-10? There are other options far cheaper.

>>31839782

The A-10 will always be better at CAS because it was specifically designed for that role. Hell, there is no reason why you can't put those same data-links in the A-10 to make it even more effective.

>>31839808

>For example, why does the JTAC / FAC(A) need to visually acquire the aircraft if he can see its weapons feed?

To provide an additional measure of safety.

To enhance situational awareness.

To be able to abort the attack if necessary.

>>31839624
>The A-10 was designed for the battlefield of the Cold War
It was more or less a product of the lessons of Vietnam, where the low-levels were safer than medium and high altitudes. By the late cold war both had become deadlier, but the Air Force was better equipped to carry out medium altitude attacks whereas the low levels were now a deathzone. The only use the A-10 would have would be as a maverick truck, and it's hardly the only plane that can do that.

>>31839807
>Hurr anybody who has something to prove me wrong is moving da goolboasts!
Dude, I gety you just learned the term, but you can't apply it to everything.

>>31839821
>The A-10 will always be better at CAS because it was specifically designed for that role.
Circular reasoning. The F-35 was designed for CAS too, and purpose-built for native control of PGMs instead of needing add-on pods and comm systems.

>>31839838
And there's a much broader range of PGMs that can be used now that the A-10 can't fire, like the SDB series.

>>31839866

>The F-35 was designed for CAS too

Maybe as a secondary, or more likely tertiary concern. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it isn't going to be as efficient (or effective) as the A-10.

>>31839772
It's gun is the only fucking thing that differentiates it offensively from other aircraft. Is denial your middle name? Because seriously, I love the A-10, but I can identify its uselessness on the modern battlefield. Your head is so far up your ass you're making me cringe.

>>31839878
Why isn't it going to be as effective? Explain your fucking reasoning. There's nothing magical about the three letter acronym CAS, explain your fucking logic. Use the specifications of the aircraft, stop talking out of your ass.

>>31839878
Nope. Ground attack is a core element of the design. Unless you're one of those people who believe the meme that the Close in Close Air Support refers to the plane and not the target.

>>31839789
>Over the course of the campaign, the A-10 force claimed to have destroyed 987 tanks, 926 artillery pieces, 501 APCs, 1106 trucks, and 698 others targets.
>Throughout the course of Desert Storm, the F-111Fs expended 5625 bombs, of which 4713 (81 percent) were LGBs. The GBU-12s were used for the tank plinking. Two-thousand, five-hundred and forty-two GBU-12s were expended by the 48th TFW (the F-111F wing) during the war. The hits claimed by the 48th TFW against ground force targets were: tanks/armor—920; artillery—252; vehicles—26; and SAMs/AAA—25.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA282318

>>31839878
>Maybe as a secondary, or more likely tertiary concern.

Full retard. From ingress to ID to TOS, the F-35 is objectively superior. To say the F-35 was not built to drop bombs, and do it accurately, shows a gross ignorace of the platform.

Unfuck yourself.

File: 1475618394032.jpg (25KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x337px

>>31839897
>>31839903
>>31839915

>CAS is just dropping bombs

The A-10 can do that just fine. But it can also engage targets from visual range, and I just don't think the F-35 could do that as well.

>>31839951
Except, due to its intigrated EO system with full retard zoom levels, it does it far, far better.

Again, unfuck yourself.

>>31837991
Spoke the a navair spokesman who claimed it will not leave service for a little while and will have new tech integrated in.

>>31839959

Does it have color display? Or is it fuzzy black & white shit?

>>31839821
>To provide an additional measure of safety.
Except it puts them at more risk because the attack aircraft is more likely to be killed or mission killed.

>To enhance situational awareness.
Except to have a proper visual of an aircraft, it has to get lower, reducing that aircraft's situational awareness my making the world pass by quicker.

>To be able to abort the attack if necessary.
This one is perhaps valid, but the JTAC should be getting told how many seconds the jet is out, and if they already have a literal picture of what the jet is about to attack, they should know whether or not they need to abort.

>>31839968
Yes, the display is capable of color, and its very sharp.

>>31839968
>>31839951
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2q65qOl1tM
>Can ID the make and model of a truck from 49NMI slant and put and SDB-I into it from that distance

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a23537/air-force-fires-up-depot-line-keep-a-10s-flying-indefinitely/

>>31839991
"These fucking pricks in Congress won't let us set a firm retirement date, so we have to waste money on this shit that could go to useful things until we can."

>>31839975

The USAF CAS manual specifically says that ground controllers should always try to establish visual contact with the attacking aircraft. They wouldn't have that in there if it wasn't useful.

Other advantages of low-altitude CAS:

>Reduces enemy radar detection by using the earth’s curvature for masking

>Reduces chance of attack from enemy surface-to-air weapon systems by using terrain for masking

>Degrades enemy GCI radar coverage, denying intercept information to enemy fighters and forcing enemy aircraft to rely on visual or onboard acquisition systems

>Reduces enemy weapons envelope lethal zones during high speed, low altitude ingress

>Improves friendly aircraft maneuvering performance.

Again, straight from the USAF.

>>31840010
4 of those points are directly achieved with stealth

>>31840018

Yeah, cause an F-35 is totally going to be running CAS sorties in stealth configuration.

>>31840033
If enemy ground fire is an issue, yeah, it will.

Why the fuck would it not?

>>31840010
>The USAF CAS manual
>implying the manual is never going to be updated

>They wouldn't have that in there if it wasn't useful.
Because communication and Air-Ground datalink capability with 4th Gen was limited and jankily assembled.

>>31840040

Because an F-35 operating in stealth configuration can only carry 2 bombs.

>>31840051
>Because an F-35 operating in stealth configuration can only carry 2 bombs.
2 2000/1000lbs class.
4 500 lbs.
8 SDB.

>>31840010
>The USAF CAS manual specifically says that ground controllers should always try to establish visual contact with the attacking aircraft.

And when was it last fully rewritten?

>Reduces enemy radar detection by using the earth’s curvature for masking
Sure, against long range SAMs, not MANPADs, AAA, small arms and other aircraft.

>Reduces chance of attack from enemy surface-to-air weapon systems by using terrain for masking
Dependent on the terrain; not the case in places like Iraq.

>Degrades enemy GCI radar coverage, denying intercept information to enemy fighters and forcing enemy aircraft to rely on visual or onboard acquisition systems
While GCI is still used, this isn't the 70s and 80s anymore; Russian and Chinese fighters would have little trouble targeting and locking an A-10 harassing their ground forces.

>Reduces enemy weapons envelope lethal zones during high speed, low altitude ingress
The A-10 isn't a high speed platform.

>Improves friendly aircraft maneuvering performance.
True, but if you're flying at 15,000ft or higher you don't have to worry about maneuvering to avoid being fired upon.

>>31840051

Again with the gross fucking ignorace.

>>31839245
1.
>Effectively target and destroy moving, camouflaged, or dug-in troops, artillery, armor, and armored personnel carriers.

The A10 has o advanced avionics to distinguish and target such vehicles. It's as much of a dinosaur as it can be while still using jet engines. IT's primary method of identifying and aiming at targets is the MKI eyeball. Modern Multie rols can read the date on your newspaper for 20 thousand feet in the air.

2.
>Remain within visual range of friendly forces and targets to facilitate responsiveness to ground forces and minimize re-attack times.

Drones can do this for far longer and cheaper.

3.
>Conduct close air support beneath low cloud ceilings and in reduced visibilities at low airspeeds in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.

Why would you want to put yourself low and slow in range of every fucking weapon the enemy has when a multirole can deliver the same amount of pain with greater precision out of range of almost every ground based weapon the enemy has.

>Enable the pilot and aircraft to survive attacks stemming from small arms, machine guns, man-portable air-defense systems, and lower caliber anti-aircraft artillery organic or attached to enemy ground forces and maneuver units.

refer back to 3.

4.
>The ability to operate from unprepared dirt, grass, and narrow road runways and to generate high sortie rates under these austere conditions.

Only to make up for it's abysmal speed and combat radius.

5.
>The ability to safely and effectively conduct troops-in-contact/danger close missions or missions in close proximity to civilians in the presence of the air defenses found with enemy ground maneuver units.

The A10 has the highest friendly fire rate of any other aircraft. Primarily because it has no IFF capability to distinguish friendlies on the ground from baddies. But also because it's weapon systems are widely inaccurate. IT's like using a hammer for surgery instead of a scalpel.

File: rescue.jpg (81KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1024x682px

>>31840092

>The A10 has o advanced avionics to distinguish and target such vehicles

You're forgetting about the Mark 1 eyeball, best sensor ever made.

>Drones can do this for far longer and cheaper

What drone does that?

>Why would you want to put yourself low and slow

So that you can make visual contact with ground controllers as recommended by the USAF CAS manual.

>Only to make up for it's abysmal speed and combat radius.

The A-10 is much, much faster than a helicopter, and that's all the troops would have left without the A-10.

>The A10 has the highest friendly fire rate of any other aircraft.

The plane that does the most CAS has a higher than average friendly fire rate? Color me shocked!

>>31840092
>Modern Multie rols can read the date on your newspaper for 20 thousand feet in the air.
And it must be noted that the EODAS and EOTS working together on the F-35 automatically hunt for ground target signatures and ID and tag them for the pilot, ground troops, and command.

>>31840010
>The USAF CAS manual specifically says
That Manual is older than damn near everyone currently serving in any branch of the military. Doctrines change when technology evolves. Manuals however are the last fucking thing to get rewritten.

>>31840120
>You're forgetting about the Mark 1 eyeball, best sensor ever made.
Meanwhile, in the real world, A-10s are using sniper pods just like everything else.

>What drone does that?
All drones can provide 12+ hour overwatch, and Predators and Reapers near-instant fire support as well.

>So that you can make visual contact with ground controllers as recommended by the USAF CAS manual.
>Manuals never change with the times!

>The A-10 is much, much faster than a helicopter, and that's all the troops would have left without the A-10.
F-15Es, F-16s, F/A-18s, and B-1s all get over a lot faster.

>The plane that does the most CAS has a higher than average friendly fire rate? Color me shocked!
No, the B-1 and Hornet do more.

>>31840120
>The plane that does the most CAS has a higher than average friendly fire rate? Color me shocked!

The A10 flew fewer than 8800 cas sorties in desert storm, the f16 alone flew over 11000 cas sorties with fewer casualties and a higher success rate. would you like to try again?

>>31840163
>The A10 flew fewer than 8800 cas sorties
It made overall 8100 sorties.
>the f16 alone flew over 11000 cas sorties
It flew 13500 sorties. F-16 has not conducted CAS during Desert Storm at all. Mavericks is the only guided weapon it used.

>>31840277
>F-16 has not conducted CAS during Desert Storm at all

Because those 13500 sorties were all against the overwhelming number of fighter planes Iraq had right? GTFO of here.

>>31840319
Google for "CAS" if you don't know what is it.
>F-16s conducted a variety of missions: attack missions in the kill boxes, Killer Scouts, night attacks with LANTIRN-equipped aircraft, road and bridge reconnaissance, and fixed-target attacks.

>>31840421
>Implying those were the only missions the F-16 did

>>31840277
And yet, it has much fewer loss rates compared to the A-10, even though people like you claiming that it being able to fly so low lets it evade air defenses, right?

The planes that suffered the highest loss rates in Desert Storm were A-10s and Tornadoes, specifically because they could only perform low level attacks, which made them mincemeat for radar guided guns, short range AA missiles, and MANPADS. Meanwhile, other coalition craft armed with PGMs could literally just fly above their effective range and drop their weapons at will.

>>31840693

Pretty much. If you can find where they did CAS please provide links.

>>31840725
I didn't claimed that A-10 is invulnerable to air defence. I am talking about only Desert Storm. A-10 is the only USAF aircraft that performed CAS in some extent, so it has more loses due to AAA and MANPADs. F-16 conducted bomb runs from more high altitudes and were less vulnerable to this threats.

>>31840805
CAS is defined by how close you have to drop bombs to friendlies to engage the enemy, not by how close to the ground the plane actually is. F-16s performed plenty of CAS missions along with the dozens of other missions they were tasked with less losses and friendly fire incidents than the A-10.

In fact, when the USAF started losing A-10s to the Republic Guard they immediately pulled them out and replaced them with F-16s.

>>31840725
Actually, there was only a brief period in mid February when A-10s used low level attacks. Within a week they had lost 4 aircraft and 30% of A-10s had suffered serious damage. In the face of these unacceptable losses the A-10s were forced to fly at medium altitudes and use guided weapons to prevent more losses from ground fire and short ranged SAMs.

>>31840805
The F-111, the F-16, and the Harrier all performed CAS in the Gulf. The F-16 actually flew a larger percentage of CAS sorties than the A-10 did, 33% vs 19%.

>>31840817
I know what it is, and I can't find mentions that F-16 participated in CAS missions, unlike A-10. Can you give a link? About replacing A-10 by F-16 for that role too.
All I said before you can find here
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA282318

File: F-111 with GBUs.jpg (723KB, 1920x1269px) Image search: [Google]

723KB, 1920x1269px

>>31839807
>What the fuck does the F-111 have to do with this?

It plinked more Iraqi tanks in the gulf war than your old hag of a planefu, that's what

>>31840051
The F-35 is not going to be using 2000lb bombs for individual tanks, you mong. It will be using 500lb bombs of which it can carry four along with a pair of AAMs

>>31839888
No. You could take its gun off and it still would have value thanks to its ability to fly low and slow with acceptable survivability, and with a very short turn radius to perform multiple passes in a short time. I'd be perfectly okay with its GAU-8 replaced by a 20mm Vulcan, for example, think of the amount of ammunitions. Think of the number of passes it could perform.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the major reason the A-10 is still running in service is that while other planes can do the job better, doesn't it have the lowest cost-per-hour to fly of any attack plane in the US inventory? I recall reading somewhere that that is the major reason it's being kept running, as the job of shooting lightly armed sand idjits it can do fairly well for very little upkeep correct?

>>31839182
it's hard for you to believe that an aircraft specialised for a specific role might be able to do that better than an aircraft designed to be a jack of all trades?

even when that role is the one single most different role from all other roles performed by fixed wing aircraft?

>>31840817
>Within a week they had lost 4 aircraft and 30% of A-10s had suffered serious damage.
During ODS 20 A-10 were damaged, 15 of them recovered and one crashed at landing. This is 11% of all aircraft.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA425408
Where did you found info regarding mission types percentage?

>>31838008
US just came out and said it's in business indefinitely.

>>31840906
>>31840827

>>31840838
http://www.afhso.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100927-065.pdf

Page 323: A-10s performed 1,041 CAS missions and 6,365 Air Interdiction missions over the course of Desert Storm.

Page 333: Harriers performed 1,528 CAS missions and 1,747 Air Interdiction missions.

Page 327-328: USMC F/A-18s flew 1,978 CAS missions and 1,769 Air Interdiction missions

Page 337-338: F-16 flew 423 CAS missions and 10,953 Air Interdiction missions.

From what we can gather from this data, the A-10 was primarily used as an Air Interdiction asset, and was in fact out performed in pure CAS missions by the F-18 and Harrier, and outperformed in the Air Interdiction mission by the F-16.

>>31840904
Except the role it specializes in is completely obsolete due to advances in technology. We no longer need a plane that can fly low and slow because we have PGMs and the sensors/optics to guide them from higher altitudes. It's also heavily against our interest to fly planes low and slow due to the huge advancements made in short range AA capability. The fact that the Su-25, which fulfills a similar role to the A-10, has suffered extremely heavy losses to AA guns and MANPADs by fairly poorly equipped and trained adversaries should show how obsolete the role is.

>>31840892
No, the A-10 is actually getting MORE expensive to maintain because the plane is no longer in production and parts for them get harder to obtain. The only way we're keeping the current fleet airborne right now is because we're tearing up the older the planes for parts to keep the newer ones running. Eventually, there will be no A-10 fleet left regardless of how hard Congress keeps cockblocking the USAF.

>>31840941
CAS is completely obselete? Technology means ground forces no longer need close support?

The Su-25 is an extremely shitty aircraft, and nobody's denying that. You'll have to try pretty fucking hard to find a russiaboo who'll stand up for the Su-25. And the argument is like saying that not bulldozing New York apartment blocks is stupid because apartment blocks are an obselete concept because soviet apartment blocks are shitty...

>>31840941
The Russians literally fielded decent anti-surface PGMs for the first time 13 months ago. They can't do SEAD to save their lives - that was the number one analyst conclusion from the war in Georgia. And you're arguing CAS is obsolete because a slow Russian plane has been shot down a lot?

>>31840978
What I'm saying is there's no longer any reason to perform CAS from a low and slow platform. The A-10 was the product of a time where weapons were optically aimed and relied as much on luck as they did on pilot skill to actually hit the target.

We've advanced quite a lot in the past 40 years.

>>31840990
The majority of Su-25 shootdowns were achieved by MANPADS and AA guns. Platforms that are notoriously difficult to destroy with SEAD techniques.

The USAF learned very quickly that they were better off converting their A-10s in medium-high altitude missile trucks so they don't have worry about that kind of shit anymore. But at that point any plane with the right sensors can do that now.

>>31841031
It'd do ok in Yemen wouldn't it? There's plenty of cavemen in the world and there's always some somewhere that're trying to start shit.

>>31841031
isn't it still one of the most cost effective ways to maximise number of PGMs and loiter time, and sortie rate in situations where medium-high altitude PGM platforms are ok?

File: mccain when he hears that A10s dont do the majority of CAS.jpg (30KB, 490x340px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 490x340px

>>31841109
Flying A-10s? Nope; an A-10 costs about $18,000 per hour to fly; an MQ-9 Reaper costs about $3,500 per hour to fly, with the MQ-9 also having a much, much longer loiter time.

If you want something that delivers more ordnance than an MQ-9, then you can opt for a B-1B, which is about $54,000 per hour (3x the A-10), but carries roughly 5x the max payload of the A-10 internally, meaning it can bring all that payload and also loiter for significantly longer than the A-10.

This is why the USAF wants to retire the A-10; not because it's not a badass plane; for Afghanistan, etc it's a fearsome weapon. But because the A-10 is expensive for what it does, and it doesn't make much sense to keep operating it other than for
>muh BRRRRRRT

>>31841289
i phrased that the way I did because I was talking about ways to get cost:ordnance:loiter:sorties all as high as possible together

the B-1 absolutely looks like the winner, as long as it's not massively more expensive/complicated to deploy/maintain, but keeping a number of A-10s on is going to be a lot cheaper than acquiring a number of new B-1s right?

sure replace it, the airforce doesn't need extra budget constraints with lockheed milking them, but may as well keep say, 60 around until a new PGM platform comes in to replace both

>>31837977
The A-10 is getting replaced. But not by multiroles, as >>31837991 said.

The A-10 is basically limited to a counter insurgency role, and it's too heavy, expensive to operate for that role. Still ten times better than any multi role aircraft though.

But a dedicated COIN aircraft, in combination with drones, is going to be even cheaper, and do the exact same job at a much cheaper cost.

So, when politicians are saying the F-35 will replace it, they're either lying, or are misled. A new dedicated COIN aircraft will be developed, once people have forgotten how much has been used on the F-35.

>>31837991
Could you be any more wrong?

>>31841974
Face it, the A-10 is outdated and has been nearly its entire service life. This is wasteful Congressional interference at it's finest.

>>31837993
Then you've heard from idiots

>>31841423
>But a dedicated COIN aircraft

Which is a role that the A-10 was forced into after it was discovered that it wasn't as good at multiroles at its actual job way back in Desert Storm.

>>31839753
LOL

He doesn't know about top attacks. 200-500 rds and even a T-90 is a ruin

>>31843273
A-10s come in at too shallow an angle, it's not a vertical dive buddy.

Shameless self-promotion...

https://youtu.be/L9JD0IIP7_Y

>>31839245
by those criteria, we should be fielding douglas skyraiders

>>31843273

Except even the USAF already taught pilots in the 80s that the GAU-8 wouldn't do much against recent Soviet armor, you ignorant tool.

https://warisboring.com/cold-war-coloring-book-taught-a-10-pilots-to-kill-soviet-tanks-a26385113bf0#.ha13qk516

>>31843273
>confusing Warthogs and Stukas

sounds like a CoD babby wehraboo

>>31841423
Why don't we just replace it with the A-37, then?

>>31840873
>You could take its gun off and it still would have value thanks to its ability to fly low and slow with acceptable survivability

>acceptable survivability

30% higher casualty rate than any other plane relegated to CAS is acceptable losses now?

Every time the A10 flys low and slow it gets turned to mincemeat.

>>31844652
Because the A-37 got replaced by the A-10, and they're no longer in production.

>>31840978
>CAS is completely obselete? Technology means ground forces no longer need close support?


No you fucking mongoloid. The Method in which the A10 performs CAS is obsolete.

>>31841324
>a new PGM platform comes in to replace both

This is literally one of the reasons why the B-21 is being built.

>>31839259
>F-35 gets shot down
>Lockheed immediately calls the local air command after they get notified a F-35 went down on their satellites.
>Bomb the jet then napalm the area, shoot the pilot, $2,000,000 will be transferred when it's done.

We will never hear about it.

>>31844908
>Then shoot down the pilot who napalmed the F-35, shoot the pilot, napalm the jet
>Infinite loop occurs
>Last remaining Air Force fighter is an F-4 adversary aircraft

Flawless victory.

>>31844842
Well CAS itself is obsolete, artillery can do the job for a fraction of the price

>>31839691
Argumentum ad Authoritas.

>>31839656
AF fag here. The base I'm at flys about 2-3 F-35 sorties a day while they fly 20+ A-10's. There simply aren't enough F-35's even if they could do the same mission.

That and the fact that the A-10 saw a production on over 700 compared to the F-35 with a little over 170, there just aren't enough to go around to deployed units, much less as trainers.

Insert A-10 Memes here

File: 2s7-1_985.jpg (120KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 600x400px

>>31847919

You realize that the F-35 production is just starting to ramp up now? It will be a while before there are enough operation F-35 squadrons to completely replace the other aircraft. The A-10 isn't going to be retired until there are enough F-35's in service to replace them.

>>31847919
>Planned 1763 in AF service alone
>Hurr only 170
Are you done being retarded.

File: 13af5b27a8afd3cef2481ab1a815cd26.jpg (22KB, 236x349px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 236x349px

>>31844924
>Last remaining Air Force fighter is an F-4 adversary aircraft
>Flawless victory.

Last USAF pilot will be almost 80 year old Vietnam veteran, who is demented enough to believe he is still in his 20's.
It ain't me starts playing.

>>31843785
Holy shit, this nitwit again

>>31849020
>Implying it's wrong

>>31840941
>No, the A-10 is actually getting MORE expensive to maintain because the plane is no longer in production and parts for them get harder to obtain. The only way we're keeping the current fleet airborne right now is because we're tearing up the older the planes for parts to keep the newer ones running. Eventually, there will be no A-10 fleet left regardless of how hard Congress keeps cockblocking the USAF.

The A-10 WAS the cheapest plane to fly in the US inventory, tied with the F-15. (During desert storm)

According to random internet sources, the A-10 still costs less than $20,000 per flight hour, compared to $67,000 per flight hour for the F35.

>>31849212
>Old numbers on a low-tech jet versus flight-hour cost on a plane still in development

>>31849212
That cost per flight hour on the F-35 is coming down sharply mind you; it's a fleet average, which includes things like early block training jets that don't really have proper ALIS support. The expected mature cost per flight hour for the F-35 is about $29,806; which it should be reaching in a couple of years.

It shouldn't be about A-10 vs F-35A though, the F-35A is primarily replacing the A-10's anti-armour / high-end CAS role. For low-end fights where cost matters, there's drones and more modern CAS platforms that are cheaper. Even the B-1B is cheaper per bomb dropped.

File: 76.jpg (22KB, 601x579px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 601x579px

>>31837977
>Within the next 100 years, do you believe the A-10 will evolve as an effective sub-orbital aerospace combat aircraft

>>31839753
>It's gun would've had trouble penetrating fucking T-62s from the rear, not even mentioning T-72s or T-90s
Guess how I know you're a moron?
Hint: the back armor of said tanks is REALLY thin.
http://m.imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK