Name a better modern conventional warfare CAS platform.

F-15E

>>32311045
it looks like a retarded flying seal

>>32311045
Reaper. More TOS.

>>32311045
CAS? A-10 you dumbass

>>32311045

Super Tucano

File: b-1a.jpg (104KB, 986x768px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 986x768px

>>32311045
unreliable and expensive for what it does.

b-1a should have been killed off, but no, they made it into a zombie.

>>32311297
I too enjoy making things up

>>32311311
Darn thing was ridiculous expensive, basically the f35 of its day.

File: capt.jpg (37KB, 400x267px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 400x267px

>>32311045
>CAS platform
Well you're wrong.

Its called 'Overwatch'
If they get under 20-25,000 ft it'd be unusual.

>>32311436
Close air support means engaging an enemy that are close to friendly forces.

Not literally the aircraft being near the ground.

>>32311045
That's why we should reactivate the Iowa class!
...oh wait, wrong thread. How about gliders? I'm sure a glider can do it.

>>32311045
Fucking bastards started flying over the neighborhood last year. Chair Force maintenance niggers say they are nightmares and the hydro faggots stay wet so idk about best.

>>32311568
xd

>>32311297
Cheaper per bomb than anything else.

>>32311179
>>32311083
Doesn't carry enough bombs

>>32311045
B-1 from the front looks like it has a cute mouse face with the canards being whiskers.

>>32311592
chair force maintainers say everything is a nightmare.

I have literally heard them bitch about how much of a "nightmare" their diesel generators are to maintain. Like, nigga, change the oil every 50,000 hours and put fuel in it. That's it.

>>32311188
It's shit

>>32311074
fuck you. now i cant unsee that.

>>32311045
I personally can't, given its ability to carry a wide variety of munitions. Giving guys on the ground the ability to choose what kind and size of bomb to drop. Its got a lantirn pod giving it the ability to provide overwatch and give guys on the ground a better picture of the battlefield. Its dash speed gives it the ability to get where its needed fast. It's got great loiter time and can refuel keeping it airborne as long as the pilots can. Its maintenance sucks but nothing can be perfect.

File: Harvest Hawk.jpg (74KB, 1593x828px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1593x828px

Depends on the mission and how the fuck has no one brought up this as a counter argument? These things are basically a flying holocaust to sand people.

>>32311045
That's damn tough, but if I had to pick a bird it'd be AH-64E. Upgraded Longbow is a fucking murder machine, the new datalinks make it an excellent recon platform, and with APKWS you can deliver a huge amount of PGM accurate enough for safe CAS.

People here always talk about the A-10's loiter time being a factor, but what good is loiter time if it doesn't have the payload to make use of that time? Going to do those ineffective gun runs?

>>32313561
But that 250nmi plus 1.5 hour loiter isn't that great, compared to, say, 12 hours for a drone or an F-35's ability to provide a 65nmi instant-release umbrella at over 600nmi operational radius.

>>32313431
Because the AC-130 and derivatives only fly at night.

Granted, at night there's nothing better, but it's still only part time coverage. They're necessary and awesome, but they have limitations as well.

Just like the F-16 that Pierre Sprey wanted - how exactly does a day fighter with no active radar or radar missiles enforce air superiority when it's nighttime half the fucking time?

File: 1424903782298.jpg (88KB, 967x539px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 967x539px

B-2

>>32311045
I would say the A-10, but it's not expensive or inefficient enough. I mean come on, it uses 30mm rather than bombs. It doesn't even cost $1000000000 a day to operate.

>>32315728
Most A-10 kills were with missiles.

>>32311186
Always wondered what those white things are.
Little parachutes?

>>32317270
Yeah

Glad my planefu's honor survives another day.

>>32316099
this

F-16 can deliver the same number of AGM-65s as the A-10 and it can break the speed of sound. A-10 is irrelevant

>>32314598
I agree that it is not universally the best for every mission, but where it does apply it is easily the scariest mother fucker in the air.
https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/the-ghostrider-the-most-heavily-armed-gunship-ever-will-send-enemies-running

File: 003.jpg (486KB, 1971x1305px) Image search: [Google]

486KB, 1971x1305px

>>32317270
Yep, retarders.

>>32317449
Bone a best

boner when

File: 1466577302213.jpg (89KB, 960x957px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 960x957px

>>32311533
WOOP WOOP RETARD ALERT!
Close air support means close to the ground, fuckface.

File: you-went-full-retard-never-go-full-retard.jpg (63KB, 554x376px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 554x376px

>>32319108

>>32311344
>darn
woah dude, there is no need for that kind of language

>>32319108
Except it doesn't

>>32311533
Is correct

There's a reason it has terrain following radar. It's designed for low level, high speed penetration. As in penetrating enemy radar defenses undetected, delivering an accurate strike, and GTFO with the quickness.

As far as is a B1B good for CAS? Yes, they are capable of delivering accurate munitions in close proximity of friendly ground forces. However, most CAS missions also require an aircraft to stay on station for quite some time and "loiter" until needed. I have heard stories of B1's loitering at altitude in support of ground forces. Not really sure how their loiter time compares to other CAS aircraft (A10), maybe someone can enlighten us.

>>32320766
It has a nearly 3000nmi combat radius. With refueling it can stay overhead all day.

>>32317485
Chill out man I was just asking a question

>>32320952
Good point. I do remember watching an a10 where they had a b1 on station at altitude, but it couldn't do anything because of bad weather. Didn't make sense to me, I'll try to find it online.

>>32319108
Kill yourself.

>>32319108
That's an appropriate image for someone whose conception of CAS seems stuck in the 1940s

>>32311179
Hello, Pierre

>>32311045
B1s are only CAS platforms in on-conventional warfare you moron. In an actual conventional war they will be too tied up doing strategic bombing to provide CAS.

>>32322246
Good thing they'll still be doing interdiction and popping stockpile and staging points, which reduces the CAS workload then, eh? The CAS workload is so high in asymmetrical warfare because the enemy has so few logistics and C4SIR nodes to hit. In a conventional war, a lot of this gets rolled back and much of the troops, supplies and materiel gets whacked before it gets close to the line. Look at Desert Storm and the actual invasion of Iraq in 2003.

That said, it's not like the USAF, USN, USMC and USArmy won't still have F-15Es, F-18s of all flavors, whatever AV-8Bs are still in service, F-35A/B/C, F-16s, AC-130 of three different flavors, B-52s, whatever A-10s are still limping along at that point, and of course more attack helicopters across all services than the next three largest fleets combined (India, Russia, China). Plus artie, which will actually be present in a much more real way with a defined ground combat front, rather than flashfires across an entire country.

CAS becomes a much more straightforward problem in conventional combat, especially with Day-0 workhorse VLO strike aircraft who don't have to worry as much about air superiority lapses or ground based A2AD systems.

>>32321084
Why people build retarded shit like this?

>>32322311
Transport of extremely oversized objects from JPL to launch facilities, transport of weirdly sized objects, loading up an ISS module for mission training in zero G (flying parabolic courses they can simulate zero G for a minute or so at a time) so astronauts can rehearse certain operations, training astronauts in general, etc.

File: IMG_1651.jpg (68KB, 702x336px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 702x336px

>>32311074
Wtf... your kinda right...

>>32319888
Edgy 16 year old detected

>wtf dude swearing is cool af man

>>32322311
>>32322319
To expand, it's transported nearly every famous space vehicle in the US space program since the 60s, and a shit ton of other outsized/cool shit to boot.
>every apollo command, supply and lunar module capsule
>most of the JPL built exploration probes
>many of the JPL built satellites
>Skylab
>several completed ISS modules
etc.

Shit has to get transported from JPL in California or from Houston to Canaveral. Almost all of it is too delicate/too wide/too expensive for rail or road transport.

>>32321084
The super guppy.
Seen one IRL.
Lmao tier funny

>>32311045
Ruger 10/22

>>32322701
Fun fact: the Tu-160 can't use laser-guided bombs for hitting moving targets (without using full-on cruise missiles)

>>32322742

it's a retarded comparison either way, the B-1 is closer in role to the Tu-22M.

the Tu-160 is closer to how the US uses the B-52

>>32320766
>However, most CAS missions also require an aircraft to stay on station for quite some time and "loiter" until needed. I have heard stories of B1's loitering at altitude in support of ground forces. Not really sure how their loiter time compares to other CAS aircraft (A10), maybe someone can enlighten us.
Lancers flown 770 combat sorties and 9500 hours during six-month deployment in Afghanistan. So one sortie last for average 12 hours. One squadron provided 24 hours of coverage everyday for 6 months this way.
http://www.dyess.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/10096/Article/267940/7th-bw-returns-from-largest-b-1-deployment-in-last-decade.aspx

>>32323053
Do you mean in that it primarily launches cruise missiles? Fair enough, although that does kind of raise the question of what it's doing in a CAS thread. From what I've read the Tu-22M also doesn't have a laser designator.

>>32314598
Psst. Filename bro. Thats not an AC130.
It's called Harvest Hawk and it was a marine corps plan to arm regular C130's with ground attack weapons and a remote weapons station enabling transport craft to provide CAS, seeing as they are always flying around the clock.I heard about it years ago and apparently it's come to fruition.

File: 300px-A-10_Thunderbolt_II_In-flight-2.jpg (15KB, 300x161px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x161px

>>32311045
Pretty Neat thread OP
But Is there any aircraft that could defeat the A-10 in Close Air support?
And I'm not talking about the A-10a. Hell, I'm not even talking about the oa-10 . I'M NOT even talking about the ya-10b with all weather capabilities and night time close air support abilities and being capable of both strafing runs and bombing runs), equipped with it's 30mm gun, a perfect airframe for dodging incoming missiles, control of the skies it's air to air capabilities, with next gen radar in it so it can detect enemy aircraft and can shoot it down with ease while being a marvel in close air support and air superiority
I'm talking about the a-10c, upgraded with the precision engagement program.

>>32323554

Why hasnt this always been a thing? It actually makes sense.. transport/logistics aircraft are fucking around round the clock, why why toss a bomb or 8 on them so they can casually dump them on any durka whos shows his face?

File: 012983f9d8dbc488c632f53e38e22304.jpg (137KB, 1024x765px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1024x765px

>>32311045
Su-25
>Cheap
>Good survivability
>Cheap
>Flies in all weathers
>Cheap
>So easy to maintain illiterate sheep hearders can do it
>Cheap
>Capable bomb truck
>Cheap
>Will get any job done
>Cheap

Also it's very cheap. Remember, logistics is god.

>>32311045
My home town is one of only two b1-b bases in the us so I'll say anything to keep them around

>>32320974
I honestly cant tell if you are joking or not

>>32322311
to carry big stuff obviously

File: Tornado_GR4_Takes_Off_for_a_Sortie_Over_Afghanistan_MOD_45153034.jpg (3MB, 3000x1858px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x1858px

>>32311045

>>32323698
>Remember, logistics is god
/Thread

>>32323607
>But Is there any aircraft that could defeat the A-10 in Close Air support?
Yes. F-16s, F/A-18s, F-15Es, B-1Bs and F-35s are all already superior at it.

>>32323698
>Remember, logistics is god.
And yet you posted a Russian plane.

File: Russian Su-25 attack plane damaged by a Georgian MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense System), probably a Russian made IGLA-1 (SA-16) 2.jpg (40KB, 600x449px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x449px

>>32324282
>Blyat Cyka, Dmitri, i of been shot, engine in shitter!
>No worries Igor, here cable tie, attach to critical component, see, as good as new, now you sit in and fly for motherland!

>>32324316
Meanwhile the US can actually afford the logistics chain for good aircraft.

>>32317270
when they have little chutes, they are literally called 'Retarded Bombs'

>>32319108
what do those moon runes say? "Fur da vodkaland?"

>>32311188
not enough bombs

>>32320974
he said those were retarders, not that you're a retard

>>32323698
So it's an A-10 with half the pylon capacity, between a fifth and a sixth of the cannon rounds, half the flight ceiling, and no ROVER or ECM?

Pass.

>>32323671
It hasn't always been a thing because you need equipment to tell the bomb where to drop; if there's a FAC then good, you can just plug in GPS coordinates for a JDAM, but if not (which I'm pretty sure is most of the time) you need sensors to find the target and geolocate it.

>>32323607
What is it about thunderbolt 2's that looks so fucking mean?

>>32324375
"Kill the German pigs"

>>32323378
Hell yeah that's what I'm talking about! I love the lancer so much. Hopefully I can see one at an airshow some day.

File: ov-10g+.jpg (132KB, 1024x625px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1024x625px

posting COIN in a CAS thread, ill informed opinions ahead

>>32324434
>not that you're a retard
lets not get ahead of ourself, this is /k/ after all

ah geez, the b1 is really the best ground strike platform in active use over the last 15 years. it's not your first pick for close-in shit, but it carried most sorties and ordinance. a lot of people do not know this because it's not a spectacular sight- all you see is dirt being lifted 100m into the air. it lacks the sexy brrrrt's. it lacks the fighter lust of the f15. but truth told, it has been a workhorse, and it is the most effective cas platform in the majority of scenarios, where loiter belongs to ac-130, and idf teams belong to helicopters. op is correct, it has carried the most weight.

>>32327386
i forgot to mention the diego crew that landed gear up. that must have been a little sad as they skidded down the line. can you imagine the frowny face in the last maintenance log? r2 plane

>>32311186
two of the bombs explode in the air, assuming those don't have proximity fuses (the rest of the bombs explode on impact), what happened here? sympathetic explosion?

>>32327434

Shrapnel setting off the bombs in air.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYjY3UqE1t0
ayo

>>32324274
If all of these planes are so superior, why do they so desperately hold on to the A10's they have?

>>32328131
Because the press, army/marine grunts and senators/congressmen generally don't understand the logistics and flow of how CAS works and is serviced, much less issues like CEP, munitions required to suppress, loiter time, etc. They also LOVE to buy into this meme that the Air Force gives zero fucks about CAS and naturally only wants shiny new sexy fighters and fuckhuge stealth bombers and fuck everything else. Then they mutter angrily about the Key West Agreements as they wander off to watch Band of Brothers one more time.

These are generally the same people bitching about how our ships are more or less unarmored compared to WWII, there are no BBs left in service, the USN's "direct artillery shore bombardment capability" is deficient, the USN doesn't have supersonic AShMs on every ship all the way down to RHIBs, the USAF doesn't have supersonic bombers or Mach 3 fighters, the Army doesn't... You get get the picture. People who are generally a lot less informed than they think they are, and many of them are serving on committees like Armed Services, Intelligence, etc. which should scare the fuck out of Americans in general. Oh well.

All that said, the A-10s do have a current use. Any FAC will tell you this. In completely uncontested airspace (including A2AD systems and an IADS, not just aircraft), they exhibit good cost per flight hour numbers, decent loiter and can service a good portion of CAS with their available PGM options. The question is whether or not these pros outweight the massive logistics ass, maintainter/pilot training and pay, continued parts production, airframe refurbishment, etc. that comes with them. It's pretty dubious from a cost/benefit standpoint, especially when they are extremely vulnerable in any sort of contested airspace (and we already have AC-130 variants for night time joy).

CONT

>>32328131
>>32328890

If they just want a low flight hour cost/long loiter decent low level CAS servicer to work in completely uncontested airspace, they should just increase drone numbers and upgrade their capabilities and FAC/operator training (best option) or start shitting out a few hundred A-1 Skyraiders or buy a similar prop-based CAS platform with modernized avionics which can actually employ SDBs and other PGMs the A-10s currently can't without an extensive upgrade program. Either option would be far cheaper by flight hour, have longer loiter and less logistics cost overall.

In a world where the USAF is struggling for funding and desperate to get the F-35As they need before F-16s start falling out of the sky, ditto LRSB and B-52s, it just doesn't make much sense to keep throwing money at training maintainers and pilots and buying parts for A-10s which simply don't have the flight hours left on the airframes to make it worth it.

>>32328890
>CAS with their available PGM options
Before you ask, these are:
>Mavericks
>Paveway series laser-guided shit
>JDAM
and that's pretty much it for PGMs on the A-10. No SDBs, Hellfires, SLAM-ER, AGM-130, JASSM, JSOW, etc.

File: sexy-new-avionics.jpg (2MB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1500px

B1 maintenance here, AMA

>>32329437
That pic makes the sensitive materials nazi in my head cringe, squeal and run for the fucking door. Unfortunately it made my dick harder than Chinese algebra so all I can do is shuffle.

>>32329437

how do they poop

>>32311074
That was the first thing I saw...

>>32329437
Bubblehead here. Hope that pic is public dissemination. If I started posted pics of my workstation, I'd have three different departments so far up my ass they'd be turning my brain to mush fighting over who was going to work my mouth like a sock puppet.

>>32328897
>If they just want a low flight hour cost/long loiter decent low level CAS servicer to work in completely uncontested airspace
And in that op-space there's also the AH-1F and AH-64D/E that are unarguably far better at gun-based CAS than the A-10 or prop planes.

File: b1 bomber belly.jpg (455KB, 3000x1993px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 3000x1993px

>>32329437
Are they maintenance nightmares with shitty readiness, or are they holding up OK?

File: B-1-drylake.jpg (450KB, 2934x1770px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 2934x1770px

>>32329557
Found it on Google, the orange wiring tells me it's one of the Edwards tails so ya, someone there is posting shit.

>>32329521
That's the crew chief's department

>>32329604
As a whole yes, extreme maintenance nightmare. That being said we've always managed to put a plane up when its needed.

>>32329896

is it true the mission readiness was shit for a long time because they were cheap as fuck on the program, or are they always like that regardless of funds?

File: 006.jpg (908KB, 1305x1971px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 1305x1971px

>>32329896
Where are you? Dyess by chance?

>>32330158
It always boils down to lack of parts availability and support equipment, which stems from funding problems

File: 022.jpg (276KB, 1971x1305px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1971x1305px

>>32330158
From maintenance guys I've talked to, it's a pain in the ass for them to get parts shipped until they deploy, then they are first in line for space on shipments.

>>32330186
I don't use bubblegum instead of B-half, so no

File: 004.jpg (889KB, 1305x1971px) Image search: [Google]

889KB, 1305x1971px

>>32330233
Eh, it's all good. I used to live in Abilene, and when MilSurpDude moved, I was the only /k/ommando there as far as I knew. These pics were from the airshow for the 30th anniversary of the bone coming to Dyess

>>32329437
Is there anything different about a B1 carrying conventional vs nuclear munitions?

What would have to be done to push the top speed of a B1B to that of the B1A?

After you are done with the maintenance do you get to go on "check rides"?

Have you performed maintenance on other types of aircraft?

Tell me cool B1 stories please, it's my favorite aircraft.

>>32332954
We have a treaty preventing us from carrying nukes on B1's.

We heard rumors the engines were getting upgraded but it wound up being untrue.

No, we don't get check rides, that's not a thing anywhere.

Here's a story
> Got this captain, he's known for pulling crazy shit
> Go into debrief after crew lands, captain is telling us about the mission
> FOB was taking heavy fire and on verge of being over run
> In his own words, he "dropped everything on 'em, and then I rolled the plane and dropped the flares on those fuckers".
> We never knew if this really happened, but all the flares were popped.

>>32333108
Didn't think about treaties. But there's nothing mechanical/electrical preventing nuclear munitions being carried? I'm thinking along the lines of targeting and guidance systems for conventional vs nuclear. Or did they completely remove that capability because of global politics?

And that's an awesome story. I'd imagine seeing that large of an aircraft screaming just off the deck would be awesome/terrify.

>>32332954
>What would have to be done to push the top speed of a B1B to that of the B1A?

Intakes would need to be modified; the radar blockers / little S-ducts on the intake aren't optimised for supersonic flight.

>No, we don't get check rides, that's not a thing anywhere.

Get a commission and it sometimes can be :P

File: AMOS_Patria_AMV.jpg (258KB, 1024x694px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 1024x694px

>>32311045
>PROS
Better on station time
More fire power
Better protected against enemy AA
Much cheaper to purchase and operate, and thus more cost effective
>CONS
Doesn't actually fly

>>32334573
>More firepower.
>Than a B-1.

Hahaha no.

>>32334640
Ok, I give you that. A $400m, 150t jet can haul a little more booms than what can fit into single self-propelled mortar

>>32334733
It's also far, far more likely to be disabled en route by an IED or ambush, not to mention requiring its own protection and far more travel time to get on station.

>>32334733
>A little
Anon please. Bone can carry more than three times as many 200 pound DIME warheads as AMOS can carry 30-pound mortar shells.

>>32333241
As part of the treaty with Russia, there's a divider between the forward and central bomb bays. Supposedly at the time it was signed, the nukes would need both bays to fit into, so the divider prevents them from going in.

>>32333450
If I did I wouldn't be at the same base, conflict of interest

>>32311194
>weeeeeee

>>32323607

I love this meme