Sure it's not the best against hardened targets, and modern

>>32357017
The BRRRRRRRT is a complete meme weapon. You can achieve far more with rockets and bombs.

>>32357017
It's shit.

It's awesome, and it was amazing at one point, but now it's absolute shit.

The gun is less effective and less accurate than even unguided rockets.

Other planes (Like the F-35) carries a higher payload.

The A10 must expose itself to AAA and manpads, but mostly manpads.

File: 876357647687637863.png (915KB, 742x480px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 742x480px

>>32357060
t. someone who plays some arcade RTS

>>32357121
lockheed shill

The A-10C is the best for its role, the only thing that comes close to challenging it is the B-1B because of faster response time and longer loiter, but it has much worse turnaround time.

The 30mm can't kill tanks any more.

There's no point in the A-10 now that this is the case.

>>32357204
It can use mavericks on tanks and guns on anything else.

>>32357189
>t. someone who plays some arcade RTS
Finnish reservist. The fuck is there to fear about the BRRRRRRRRRRT compared to bombs and rockets?

>>32357222
A .50 BMG will fuck up a humvee, this thing fires rounds that will cut through a T-72s top armor, that's hardly something to sniff at, so no you're not safe from this unless you're in a bunker which it will just send it's other pay loads to kill you with

File: 1480981308538.jpg (56KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 645x773px

>>32357222
>Finnish reservist
>Mandatory military service for males in Finland

>Being a man in Finland makes you an authority on American military aircraft

>>32357249
>you need to be an authority on American military aircraft to know that rockets are superior against soft targets than a 30mm autocannon
Your image suits you well.

File: aircraft -super tucano.jpg (4MB, 6016x3384px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 6016x3384px

>>32357017
>Lightly armed and armored targets are the majority of the things it's sent after,
Herro. Or better yet a drone, if you're doing is bombing dirt farmers in Toyota a twinjet is pricier than what you need for the job.

File: 1437273585728.jpg (1022KB, 2126x1721px) Image search: [Google]

1022KB, 2126x1721px

>>32357291
I wish I could own a super tucano

>>32357222
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4zm5duK3hY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4HFGouasDc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvg7qrIiDTM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKRt2DYMvdU

cheap and easy.

File: AD-2Q_Skyraider_VA-195_in_flight_c1949.jpg (860KB, 1940x1332px) Image search: [Google]

860KB, 1940x1332px

Bring back the skyraider for mowing down kebab plz. If it can remove rice farmers and it can remove dirt farmers as well.

>>32357335
Yeah and I would rather be fired at by that than receive rockets or bombs.

>>32357017

There is far cheaper platforms that do CAS just as good.

It was a great plane, but just let it rest now.

>>32357286
They're not superior because they are less accurate and you're comparing a maximum of 76 70mm rounds vs 1200 rounds of 30mm

>>32357363
nigga why

>>32357397
Maximum is less of a threat to me than the instant firepower it can unleash. The longer the plane loiters above target, the higher its chances of being shot down are. BRRRRRRRRT works perfectly against sandniggers, but bombs and rockets provide an instant effect that allow the plane to egress without taking fire.

>>32357415
Because tons of tiny boombooombooms are less dangerous than big BOOOMs.

>>32357397
SDBs is the way to go.

And its not like you can target 1200 different targets anyway. And 76 70mm rockets will still bring more explosives to the target

>>32357017
It's too fucking slow Imo and to expensive for what it does.
The gun is cool but unnecessary. Using the gun means it's too low too. A cheaper more modern airframe could do what it does better. I think between the f35, f15e, and the Lancer the only base that could be covered would be a cheap plane that sits high up with a nice sensor suit that can loiter and chuck mavs and jdams from a high and comfy alt out of the reach of aa and manpads

I don't claim to know shit about shit, my credentials are a fucking it may bachelor's tomorrow and a lot of time in il2 46 and dcs.

>>32357017
But why a jet? Shouldn't we be using an attack helicopter for those things?

File: 1471200850699.jpg (74KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 680x680px

>>32357189
>responding to a more informed poster with vidya references
>shill
Get the fuck back to your containment board

>>32357435
>Because tons of tiny boombooombooms are less dangerous than big BOOOMs.

Which is why we switched from MIRVs to SRVs...

>>32357462
fuck off furry/german

File: back-to-status-quo-where-everyone-gets-treated-equally-like-garbage.jpg (109KB, 750x689px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 750x689px

>>32357435
even bombs disagree with you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqPqzs-JeDo

>>32357461
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala
being low and slow is retarded
against any half competent military attack helis and aircraft like the a10 are like stukas, vulnerable without air superiority BUT they also have to deal with modern threats like a shilka or a manpad. a cheap to operate aircraft that can sit high for hours and put bombs where they're needed is really the only thing these a/c need to do

>>32357471
>MIRV
>tiny boomboomboom
Lol what? I'm comparing autocannon rounds to plane-dropped bombs, not nukes.

>>32357486
Yeah, because smart cluster-bomb EFPs are totally comparable to an autocannon.

>>32357509
They're both comparable. The whole principle is that if you divide up a payload to fractions into smaller warheads and spread those out, you hit more stuff. The only advantage rockets have over the avenger cannon is standoff from flak and IR SAMs.

>>32357598
>The whole principle is that if you divide up a payload to fractions into smaller warheads and spread those out, you hit more stuff
Yes and this applies to the BRRRRRRRRRRRRT machine how, exactly? Can it actually spread out its fire enough for it to have an advantage over rockets or bombs? Are 30mm rounds effective enough to actually harm something that's not standing out in the open and aren't hit directly?

>>32357598
>The only advantage rockets have over the avenger cannon is standoff
>only
Considering any sort of warfare that's not curbstomping third world shits, standoff capabilities are extremely important.

>>32357460
>chucking JDAMs to support boots on the ground
College life suits you, never join the air force because you'll accidentily take out soldiers and marines

>>32357686
t. Moron who doesn't understand dick about CAS

>>32357619
>Can it actually spread out its fire enough for it to have an advantage over rockets or bombs?

Yes, you can strafe in any direction you want and if you fire at higher altitudes there is a bigger deviation of impacts.

>Are 30mm rounds effective enough to actually harm something that's not standing out in the open and aren't hit directly?

You seem to not understand that the warthog rockets kill using shrapnel, it doesn't have a powerful blast.

>>32357686
>chucking JDAMs to support boots on the ground
I thought this was standard SOP in Afghanistan? A camelfucker fires at a patrol from a compound, 20 minutes later JDAM.

>>32357694
>if you fire at higher altitudes
You also get targeted by every single AA system in the region.
>You seem to not understand that the warthog rockets kill using shrapnel, it doesn't have a powerful blast.
No, but with a single strafe of rockets, an attack aircraft can cause far more damage than with a strafe of its gun.

>>32357711
>standard SOP
SOP*

>>32357711
>No, but with a single strafe of rockets, an attack aircraft can cause far more damage than with a strafe of its gun.

And the non-Warthog aircraft goes home to rearm its rockets while the A-10 goes in for another pass. And another and another and another...

>>32357734
>And another and another and another
And gets shot down by friendly neighbourhood anti-air.

Just put the gun on an Abrams hull, like the Russian terminator. It doesn't need to be attached to a meme plane that will go down near instantly in a war against even semi-competent goatfuckers.

>>32357686
college life does not suit me it was 4 years of torture. I already was a marine but I thought saying that would lower my credentials further.

>>32357291
I wouldn't be against it if it could do the same job for a lower price, but I don't know the numbers. Can it get there fast enough? Can it carry enough weapons and loiter for a longish time? I just want something that gets the job well done. It's all about working with the ground troops and protecting them.

File: goodness gracious great balls of fire.png (128KB, 266x297px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 266x297px

>>32357017
>Lightly armed and armored targets are the majority of the things it's sent after, and it does pretty well against those.
that must be why they were pulled off "attack the RGFC" duty when two hogs got downed in a single day by a shit tier SAM with the power of a manpad.

File: 7626524762768.jpg (1MB, 3600x2395px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3600x2395px

>>32357639
>>32357742
The A-10 is a ground-hugging pop-up maverick platform in an AA heavy environment

>>32357763
Ammunition constraints would be a huge issue, it would also be unable to effectively take out T-72s as it would be unable to target their top armor meaning you are intentionally reducing the combat effectiveness of the M1A1 system for little benefit as the chief benefit of the A-10 is fast reaction time which the Abrams lacks

>>32357825
and that's why it sucks.

>>32357825
The A-10 is dead in an AA heavy environment

The A-10 is dead in a half-assed AA environment.

>>32357825
Yeah and if it's going to loiter above target, it's also going to loiter above anti-air systems.

>>32357825
>The A-10
>platform in an AA heavy environment
I'll take things that are objectively false with historical evidence to support the contrary, for $500, Alex.

>>32357809
>a shit tier SAM with the power of a manpad.
2 and 1/4 the power of a MANPADS. Just because Strela-1 sounds a lot like Strela-2, doesn't mean they are the same.

Everything else you said was on point.

>>32357335

Mavericks are the most effective weapon the A-10 has, its gun ain't shit.

>>32357734
No, it gets riskier with each subsequent pass. So much so that these low passes you're talking about are forbidden to do.

>>32357734
>And the non-Warthog aircraft goes home to rearm its rockets while the A-10 goes in for another pass. And another and another and another...

no it doesn't, as even in those low intensity conflicts a-10 almost exclusively pgm's goatfuckers from medium altitude

a-10 comes to some massive problems even in low intensity conflicts

first of all i cant loiter for shit when heavily loaded, that's why most of the time a-10 missions are on call not on station and a-10 is both slow and slow to climb

this is what makes b-1 absolute beast for cas, average on station time for b-1 in afganistan was 12 fucking hours

all of other aircraft can answer on call mission much faster than a-10 as well this is why you will find f-16 and f-15 are used way way more often than a-10

in reality a-10 is fine, it does then job

in not expensive to fly, and is really rugged

>>32357865
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWrgUZbuhiw

wrong

>>32357857
i can't be assed to compare the warhead sizes between the gopher and other manpads used at the time, but either way you'd think that if the A-10 was such an unstoppable object, it would be able to shrug off a 5kg warhead all the same as a 2.5kg warhead.

>>32357884
1. All aircraft have done what you posted. F-15E, F-16s, F-18s have all done gun runs. Hell, Chinooks have done gun runs.

2. That is now forbidden to do, as the chance of potentially being shot down are too high. Even in a relatively SAM free environment such as AFG. Anything better protected is going to put those planes at risk.

>>32357857
An A-10C got downed by an Igla, m8.

Any SHORAD including old as fuck cannons with no radar guidance are a threat to the A10, better aircraft merely fly above these threats

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

112KB, 452x554px

>>32357923
>Hell, Chinooks have done gun runs.

>>32357838
>>32357842

Obviously it wouldn't be going up against S3/400 defended AOs but it was used against SA-2/3 search radars in the gulf war.

>>32357996
Except I was referring to a specific incident where two warthogs were shot down by IR guided missiles fired from a Strela-10/SA-13 "Gopher" with a 5kg warhead.

>>32357291
>>32357304
>Props
>Turning your back on the ONE FUCKING THING THAT THE A-X PROGRAM WAS ABOUT
WE HAD THE A-X PROGRAM FOR A REASON. PROPS ARE OUTDATED FOR COMBAT AIRCRAFT, AND IF WE'RE GONNA GO BACK IN TIME, LETS GO BACK IN TIME THE RIGHT WAY AND DO >>32357362
Speaking of the Able Dog, there's a nearby air museum where you can go right up to an AD-4. It's amazing to see how big it is in person.

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

28KB, 540x540px

>>32358024
I should add that this was in a single engagement, the 2nd hog went down when he tried to
>loiter
and provide
>CAS/overwatch

>>32357929

Yeah? A Jap zero got downed by a 1911

File: F16.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>32358057
kek
false equivalency

>>32358024
Almost all the A-10s were shot down in one small area on the kuwaiti border. Probably had something to do with unfavorable terrain, blue on blue restraints etc

>>32357913
>other MANPADS
>>32357929

The way anon said
>>a shit tier SAM with the power of a manpad
makes it clear he is talking about one of the incidents involving a Strela-1.

File: 1481045531653.jpg (36KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 640x640px

I hope they never get rid of the A-10. Such a badass plane!

>>32358163
>other MANPADS
sorry for not catering to peeps who don't know the difference between SAMs and MANPADS.

My wording is quite clear, I don't know where you fucked up.

>two hogs downed by a SAM (being the gopher)
>with the power of a MANPAD
>followed by ref. to warhead sizes

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

208KB, 1913x953px

>>32358157
It's because the A-10s were tasked with defeating the Republican Guard (RGFC) which they failed spectacularly at as seen by them being yanked from frontline service against RGFC targets.

This is a pretty common trend when looking at
>A-10s
>any type of air defense

thx low n slow

File: a-10 warthog.jpg (181KB, 1600x800px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1600x800px

If Airfaggots hate it so much, why don't they just give it to the Army? I know Airfags had to weasel policies into place to justify their existence, but there is no reason to screw over CAS (even though Navy does 80% of CAS) just because Airfags feel like cancelling the small amount of relevant airframes in between their sex change operations and AIDS poz parties.

File: 2.jpg (2KB, 114x192px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 114x192px

>>32358271
>why don't they just give it to the Army?
Because the Army said they want nothing to do with it?

>>32358271
Removal of the A-10 doesn't "screw over CAS"

File: the US Air Force.jpg (48KB, 594x394px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 594x394px

>>32358278
This. Every other branch has their answer to the CAS question. Even with the A-10, the Air Force is an irrelevant money pit that does what the Navy does except much more poorly.

They should stick to what they know best, Cultural Tolerance classes.

>>32357060
>The BRRRRRRRT is a complete meme weapon.

confirmed,has only ever saw on youtube or in a video game.

File: CloseAirSupport_chart2B.jpg (331KB, 595x1382px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 595x1382px

>even though Navy does 80% of CAS

lol

>>32357460
>cheaper like an f35
A10 are $18 million apeice compared to a $130million F35.
Barring the pisspoor performance against SAMs the A10 is still decent. The turbofan engines are fairly fuel efficient, Using AGM missiles, the A10 still has a better turning radius than any other jet so it can be back on target faster, and provided the enemy isn't fielding manpads, the warthog still has a psychological impact on the enemy.

>>32358367
A10s was 18 mn a pice 30 years ago, they would be far more expensive today (but still far from an F-35)

>>32358367
>A10 are $18 million apeice
What is inflation?

>>32358030
>A-X PROGRAM
The A-10s role was to kill soviet tank columns, and it would have been shit at that job against the AA defences of the 1970s, it's be completely pointless today.

>>32358417
fugg off a10 hater.
go play you're vidja games some more already.

F-35 is a money laundering operation for the transexual coup of the US military

>>32357789
Yeah, I wanted to go Marines but I scored too high on the ASVAB

File: 1481930850713.jpg (129KB, 751x516px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 751x516px

>>32357017

>>32358576
Shut up, Phil.

>>32358537
He's right though, the gun was not powerful enough to get through the armor on Soviet MBTs. Also, the Soviets would go on to upgrade their AAA with bigger guns and larger radars to specifically deal with the A-10.

>>32358367
>A10 are $18 million apeice compared to a $130million F35.
A-10s get spare parts from currently existing airframes, you mong.

>>32357017
AC-130 will always be best ground attack aircraft

>>32358367
>F35
>130 million

I want Sprey to leave

The only selling point it has left is killing insurgents on the cheap, but drones do the same thing even cheaper. It's time to let go.

File: agm-65.jpg (68KB, 750x498px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 750x498px

>>32357017
>Sure it's not the best against hardened targets, and modern tanks are a tough nut for most things to crack

What in the ever loving ignorant fuck are you talking about?

File: harabs.png (508KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 720x480px

>>32360159
>It's time to let go

You'll be sorry

File: 1481831885065.png (143KB, 1386x964px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 1386x964px

>>32360222
i suspect he's pic related in the ICU

File: A10 cost.jpg (42KB, 427x483px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 427x483px

>>32358367
>what is inflation?

>>32360321
I have this suspicion that he was a phoneposter and he got distracted by something and put the phone in his pocket.

>>32357121
Even when it was first produced, it was basically a suicide weapon given the density of Soviet organic AA. It might get a few vehicles, but it would almost certainly get shot down.

>>32357121
>The gun is less effective and less accurate than even unguided rockets.

Not only is this the literal opposite of true, you dont seem to even know what rockets are used for.

>>32357189
t. Retard

>>32357219
And the F-35 can use a broader range of weapons, carry more, get overhead faster and shoot from further away, and go a lot farther. And has a far lower risk of friendly fire.

>>32357245
>Implying at any of the relevant attack angles you're getting a good shot at top armor

>>32357446
>F-35 can carry 24
>32 when 6-bomb racks enter service

>F-15E Can carry 20 now, 36 when four more stations updated to carry, and 54 with 6-racks

>B-1B near-future upgrade to hold 96, with later improvements to 144

>A-10 holds 0.

>>32357509
>Yeah, because smart cluster-bomb EFPs are totally comparable to an autocannon.
You're right, it's not. The CBU-105 can actually take out a tank column in one shot.

>>32357686
>Reminder that the plane with both highest friendly fire incidents and kill count is the A-10.

>>32360924
>close in air support aircraft are more likely to hit friendlies
>in other news, the Earth revolves the sun, and ice is cold
>also a B1B bomber literally dropped bombs on friendly forces practically on purpose

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/20/air-force-returns-afghanistan-friendly-fire-crew-t/

>>32361009
Except the A-10 only does a small fraction of CAS, and is more likely to kill friendlies because it's got shitty ground targeting capabilities in comparison.

>>32361137
>I literally shit post on /k/ all day and am wrong about everything I type

>>32361163
At least you admit it.

File: 1366953774873.gif (126KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 720x480px

>>32361163
>He actually thinks that visually identifying targets leads to less blue-on-blue
what a nigger, Sniper > Eyeball

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

File: sniper-pod-002-ts600.jpg (31KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x400px

>>32361379
>what a nigger, Sniper > Eyeball
>ok...

>>32361418
>F-16 from A model could drop a dumb bomb with far more accuracy than an A-10A
>Hawg pilots lamented getting stuck in it because of that and the two-week total fleet loss estimate in a Fulda Gap combat scenario
>Implying other fighters don't have better end results with similar pods
>Implying the F-35's isn't far superior

>>32361556
>>F-16 from A model could drop a dumb bomb with far more accuracy than an A-10A

....you're literally retarded

You probably dont even understand the ccip/crrp is more accurate in the warthog than it is in the viper. Jesus christ, kid.

>>32357017
>Sure it's not the best against hardened targets, and modern tanks are a tough nut for most things to crack
wat
it was made to be a tank killer?

The main enemy of the A10 is on the US ground, it has stars on his shoulders and works for military industries... Only muricans despise this excellent plane, it's their culture to want more, buy more, consume more, no matter what.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXj2XGC9rIs

>>32361137
>>32361379
it HAS a sniper pod

video game experts pls go

>>32357204

If only we had some adversary on the Korean peninsula that fielded the very hardware A-10s were designed to destroy.

>>32363214
>Dragging on a dead body together with the rest of your air force.
>just for one potential threat of a country
It is only permitted if one country in question is USSR.

>>32357803

considering the glacial speed that the A-10 flies, a Super Tucano definitely can get there at a similar speed.

CAS is CAS, whether it's from a fast mover, a heavy bomber, a RPA, or an A-10.

>>32357446

SDBs aren't great at CAS due to their flight profile when they're close to the target.

>>32363214
T-55's? Cuz it only had a 2% chance of a kill shot on an attack run against one single attack vector on the T-62's.

>>32363194
The Sniper pod was the best and worst upgrade for the A-10. Gave it greatly enhance capabilities for stand off and then regulated it to medium/high altitude bomb Taxi role since it isn't worth it to send it low and slow anymore.

This is the reason why the A-10 is obsolete, for it's current flight profiles other assets do the same job better and more importantly faster.

>>32361990
>....you're literally retarded
No u.

Seriously, you're fucking stupid if you think you're right. The F-16's radar gave it an unprecedented level of accuracy. The A-10A was still reliant on basic sighting.

>>32363155
The A-10 has never had a real mission of its own that wasn't suicidal, and only exists because the Air Force wanted to kill the AH-56 Cheyenne.

>>32363786
>since it isn't worth it to send it low and slow anymore.
Considering the disastrous run on the Republican Guard in Desert Storm it's easily argued it could never really do that, either.

>>32358576
Reminder that the US Air Force has the most AIDS and transsexuals of any branch.

Also, airfags are not veterans. Being part if a broadway play pretending to be a military branch does not make you a veteran.

>>32364596
Fuck off, Phil.

>>32364569
>The A-10 has never had a real mission of its own that wasn't suicidal
Yes, it was designed to be "cheap" and expendable (and I love this concept), but 30 years in operation have proved that the enemies actually fought by the USA were never able to shoot it down that easily. In the end its service record is super efficient...
I mean, it was built for a war that never happened, but was eventually fit for the reality, and that's what McCain says in this video "Is it good?" "Yes sir but..." "Thank you.". It's like a flying AK47, of course it's old and outdated, but it fucking works and that's all that matters.

File: A-9 Thunderbolt II.jpg (20KB, 400x301px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x301px

You could have prevented that abomination from ever coming into being, friend.

>>32365290
>but 30 years in operation have proved that the enemies actually fought by the USA were never able to shoot it down that easily.
Except that one time in Desert Storm where it attacked as designed and two were lost, a dozen grounded, and maybe 2 still flyable in one day.

File: 1481552165213.jpg (46KB, 644x234px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 644x234px

>>32357121
How does this make you feel

File: pol pls go.jpg (95KB, 580x735px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 580x735px

>>32357189

>>32357017
I do understand that it's cool and all but please explain me why A-10 would be better than AH-64 or A-1Z in an uncontested airspace?

Because it seems to me that people are usually commenting about guns vs. guided munitions in these threads. But I don't see how strafing gun run would be better than precision shots from a rotorcraft with no time spent to align again. For guided munitions they will have F-35 eventually anyway. Price of helicopters are usually lower too.

>>32366155
Like literally everything else he tweets: he keeps being fucking retarded and showing how incapable he is of being President.

>>32367339
Those are good points, but the A-10 is faster (better survivability also comes with speed) and can carry more munitions, and it also has aerial refueling capabilities. Helicopters are good, but they aren't quite good enough for every AtG role.

File: brothers-from-another-mother.jpg (3MB, 1680x2100px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1680x2100px

>>32367339
An A-10 IS basically a fixed wing Apache. The whole point of its existence is to be to the airforce what attack helos are to the Army. A-10's carry PGM's, have since day one, and also act as JTAC and CSAR. Also, helo's do not perform well in all regions, in high altitude mountainous regions like Afgahnistan, they crash like flies against a wall, they can barely get any lift

>>32367496
Dropping bombs on high mountainous regions is a mistake anyway. You retards are missing the point of bombing people. You don't just bomb whatever you want and targeting caves in afghani mountains sounds awfully like penny packeting which is established amongst air power theorists as the worst possible use of your aircraft.

A-10 defenders need to just let go, that method of air warfare is over. In unconventional warfare, you want to avoid strike force and in a conventional war it would suffer massive causalty or require too much support to operate efficiently.

>>32367560
>A-10 defenders need to just let go, that method of air warfare is over
>Aircraft no longer fire precision guided missiles, drop GBU's, fire rockets, or provide any kind of direct ground attack anymore
>also aircraft do not perform CSAR or provide FAC

....ok

>>32357304

Brazilian bro here, this is not a Super Tucano but a Pilatus PC 21.

They sort of look the same but you can easily tell them apart from the tails.

>>32367487
And in all of those measures the A-10 gets beat by the F and B series planes.

>>32367899
>B1B bombs friendlies because they tried using NVGs to spot troops 10 miles away...
>F-16 and F-15s get called in to do gun runs and miss
>their guns arent sighted in for ground attack
>the pilots are scared they'll hit own troops
>they opt to just drop flares instead and hope that does something
>it doesn't, because they're flares...

>>32367962

Yes, the F-15E has an up canted gun. But we strafe anyway. It just leads to unnerving sight pictures. We've even picked the brains of the A-10 WIC dudes to figure out how to strafe better.

>>32367962
>A-10 hits friendlies 4 times for twice the kill count of the B-1B's incident
>Implying gun runs matter

>>32367899
Except that those aircraft also cost more to do the same thing negligibly better.

>>32368753
Except the A-10 is an ancient, excess cost with no original manufacturer to build new spares and a waste of maintenance resources that does nothing the rest of the fleet doesn't do better.

>>32357017
A-10 advantage is that it can provide CAS when only a pilots sight is the targeting aim point, i.e. when no laz is possible, heavy fog, smoke thick and low cloud cover. No other combat plane is capable this role. plus the gun with its distinct sound is enough to put most enemy into hiding or retreat and the morale boost to friendly troops on the ground is an added advantage.

>>32369130
Nice memeing there. If you can't see with telescopic/IR you're seeing even less with Mk1 Eyeball.

>Gun
>hurr sykologikal!

>>32369130
A Cobra or Apache can do the same thing far better, with the latter having much more effective sensors for identifying targets in poor conditions.

A viper can, for it's many flaws and sins, can make a gun run.

So can an eagle or hornet. The only combat aircraft that can't perform this relatively pointless and almost never used maneuver are F-35's not fitted with a gun-pod or bombers.

Hell, an AC-130 can do it about a thousand times better then an A-10.

File: clouds kill the viper.jpg (220KB, 634x899px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 634x899px

>>32369149
That's not how it works. Cloud cover can make it impossible for F-16's to lase, where in A-10's simply drop BELOW the clouds, and fly normally. A-10's were still used in missions where in F-16's were grounded due to weather

>>32369201
And even then, the F-35 will have both the programmable burst count and far better targeting systems compared to the Hog.

>>32369256
>Issues in the past can't be overcome with technology and experience!

File: howard.jpg (59KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1200x630px

>>32369268
>gets presented with reality
>doesn't know how to deal with it

>>32369313
>Hurr durr derr's nuuu waayyy dey culd figger out a fix!

>>32369381
You have to be 18 to post on this site

>>32368753
The key thing is that they do is vastly faster in terms of reaction time. Other Assets can literally take off, be on station, drop ordnance and return to base before an A-10 arrives on station for a lot of distances.

>>32369391
And yet here you are, acting as if what was true 25 years ago is still true now.

>>32369256
Guess it's a good thing targeting hasn't advanced at all since the Bosnian War and SAR hasn't been adapted for targeting applications at all.

>>32369130

Radar CAS is a thing. Moreover it's a thing that the A-10 cannot do.

You know who can? B-1, F-15E, and F-16

>>32369588
>Radar CAS is a thing.

Not really. Especially when targets are in proximity to friendly forces.

You still have to visually ID what you're shooting at

>>32369630
No you don't. It depends in your ROE and if it's BOC/BOT

File: image-from-sandias-system[1].png (568KB, 769x711px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 769x711px

>>32369630
>I don't know what Synthetic Aperture Radar imaging is

>>32369396
Speed is a valid reason to spend more money, as long as the price premium is proportional to the performance gains.

>>32369652
Apache Longbows rarely, if ever, use their radar for pure targeting. It's always flir, the old fashion way

>>32369952

that's nice. a fighter or a bomber has the ability to SAR map. you're proving >>32369703 right.

>>32370128
No, you literally dont understand how actual operations are carried out, nor do you seem to understand how any of these systems are actually used

>>32370192

weird because i can quote the F-15E CAS briefing guide by heart at this point.

how an organic Army asset does CCA and how the AF does CAS are different. how a F-15E, a B-1, an A-10, and an AC-130 do CAS are different.

>>32370215
That's nice, you dont actually know about actual combat operations though, nor can you provide any examples of literal radar only close air support being carried out against goat herders and dug in insurgents

>>32370271

it's obviously not preferred. ideally you do CAS at Echo 5-7. but i know of "TIC" CAS that is Type III, bombing mortar positions well-separated from anybody

>>32370312

and in a situation like that, radar CAS is fine. or if you're JDAM-ing a building with a GBU-31.

>>32370215
>Im an F-15 pilot
>I don't understand the difference between CAS and ordinary fixed target destruction of known armor and enemy encampments

>>32370374

>i don't know the difference between BOC and BOT
>i've never heard a systems readback

>>32367496
>An A-10 IS basically a fixed wing Apache.
>no FLIR
>no gunner
>6 ATGMs vs 16
How about no?

>>32369630
>You still have to visually ID what you're shooting at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jabjgY6B2nM

>>32370414

it has a SNIPER pod.

>>32370414
>flir
>gunner

Are you literally retarded? Mavericks themselves have IR imaging, not to mention the A-10's own TGP... and of course carries more ordinance than an apache

Jesus christ, this board is dumb

>>32370476
>it has a SNIPER pod.
Yeah, and? It uses the same ones as the Viper, Hornets, and Strike Eagle. But can't get over target as fast.

File: dumb wizzo1.jpg (289KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1920x1080px

>>32370394
Hey! It's that fag who pretended to be an F-15 guy, then challenged a bunch of flight simmers (who clearly knew more than him) to a brevity-off!

File: dumb wizzo.jpg (290KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1920x1080px

>>32370540

>>32370524

the Navy doesn't use SNIPER pods. they have LITENING II which sucks.

>>32370540
>>32370557

>pretending

>>32363336
>CAS means the plane has to be close to the target
I hate what video games have done to our youth.

>>32370584

they're designed to be used at like 30-40 miles. they have massive TOF's of several minutes. using them at 3-5 miles (or even beyond the target) forces them into this weird flight profile that results in unpredictable TOFs.

>>32370460
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jabjgY6B2nM
I made a drinking game out of this video. Every time they notice or recognize the orange signal panels, take a shot. I'm only at 3:57 and they've already mentioned it 3 times.

>>32370613
So? What does it matter if it takes 5 minutes of glide for the hit or it takes 5 minutes for the bird to get overhead to start the process to drop a JDAM?

>>32370654
Got up to 4 before the gun run. What fucking morons.

>>32370654
Best part of that video / event is that it disproves two major arguing points for the A-10:
1. That being able to see targets with your own eyes means better situational awarness.
2. That the GAU-8 is a massacring machine (it only managed to kill one guy and wound a few others in a convoy of non/lightly-armoured vehicles).

>>32370677

because it's really nice to let the guys you're dropping weapons for a time of impact so they can take cover if RED is an issue, or so they can press to the target after impact.

and we can get to the target before the SDB impacts. we fly a LOT faster than a SDB. think of them as little standoff weapons.

>>32357017
I don't like to look straight on at A-10.
Plane looks like Mickey Mouse; feels awkward.

>>32370540
>I play DCS so that gives me an authority on aircraft over actual pilots
Lol, that guy seems like a legit pilot. There have been several pilots on /k/ in the past, no reason to think that he's fake just because he was unaware that people like me no-life DCS to the point that we can remember fuckloads of NATO brevity codes. I would appreciate if he gave some definitive proof and started tripping when he posts in relevant threads, though.

>>32370954

i hate being a trip/namefag.

>>32370990
Understandable, it'd just be nice to bring some sense into these shitfest A-10/F-35 threads with someone with at least a bit of credibility. As long as you're not a nigger and posting in irrelevant threads it's fine. Having another Naval Aviator-type poster would be nice every once in a while.

>>32370954
>Lol, that guy seems like a legit pilot.

He was a legit idiot, he just found some brevity book and was posting random codes. He didn't know anything about the F-15, flying, combat, tactics, ect.

If you think an actual pilot would try and measure his self worth by posting easily obtainable terminology and challenging anyone to decode this classified information (he literally called it "classified") on a Japanese anime board, then you must be duped by fake 'pilots' all the time.

the gun sounds cool, like some sort of war trumpet that shoots bullets. This is valuable for ground support, as morale is half the battle.

Its replacement should be similar, but fire subsonic ammunition so people getting rekt have a chance to hear the glorious sound before hand.

>>32371058

i said the tactics were classified - as in aircraft capabilities and the ranges at which we take certain actions since they're all built on intelligence analysis of enemy capabilities and tactics.

do you want me to quote more F-15E EP's i've briefed so many times that i can quote them in my sleep?

>>32371082

i'd assume dying would be worse for their morale than hearing bullets.

>>32371093
>I said the tactics were classified
>the tactics I didn't know or understand and so said were classified so I could avoid being outted
>I also claimed a bunch of brevity codes were classified too
>lololol Im such a moron

>>32371130

i never claimed the brevity comm was classified. point out where i did. but knowing brevity is something that is a bare minimum for my job.

>>32371093
>i'd assume dying would be worse for their morale than hearing bullets.

Knowing that you could get into a situation you know youre fucked is more troubling than knowing if you do get fucked you wont know it.

The next ground attack platform should have 10+ 25mm guns on them, with each one having a different rate of fire, to sound at a different frequency. Then you could play music with your bullet organ
This would be a great asset.

>>32371157
So you haven't exceeded the bare minimum then?

>>32371157
>>32371130
>>32371058

also why the fuck would i post classified shit on /k/

i'm not Hillary, i wouldn't get away with it.

>>32371093
>classified tactics
>rolling scissors and energy management are classified now

>>32371182

BVR is classified since your timeline is always tied to a threat. if the enemy knows we do X at Y miles, then they can adapt their tactics.

File: classified.jpg (215KB, 609x856px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 609x856px

Guys, I'm posting classified information!

C L A S S I F I E D

File: f-16 pilot.jpg (478KB, 2100x1394px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 2100x1394px

I have an unrelated question about aviation. What would a pilot do if their mask failed at a high altitude? Do they have a backup in most fighters etc., or would they just be fucked?

>>32371252

the first step would be to gangload - 100% O2, emergency pressure, and make sure it's on "on" or "PBG". you'd also start a descent. if you don't feel relief from your hypoxia symptoms pretty much after a breath or two you'd go and pull the green apple - the emergency oxygen bottle. for us it's on the lefthand side of the seat. for F-15s you also need to disconnect the ship supply oxygen from your CRU-60 since the pressure differential means the emergency O2 will be flowing into the ship supply rather than into your mask. there's only a few minutes of emergency bottle O2, so you're going to want to descend. less than FL250 is the minimum, but (i forget, i'd have to double check my checklist) you'd want to be under 18k or 10k. you'd land as soon as conditions permit and see a flight doc for hypoxia.

>>32366155
"We need to get costs under control" is different than "cancel the only fifth-gen stealth multirole in active production and deployment."

>>32371307
>F-22 can be restarted

Problem solved

>>32371319
Oh, the F-22 has VTOL and carrier launched versions now?

>>32357017
>Refuse to update A-10 electronics for 30 years
>Cry about how you need superstealth F-35s to do strafing runs because the A-10 can't launch networked mind-guided hypersonic cruise missiles because the electronics aren't good enough
Air Force logic

Neck yourselves.

>>32371307
I'd like to know how he's going to "cut costs" on a program that's already on a comprehensive production cost reduction and optimization program.

>>32371345
VTOL is practically useless since the US always uses full size airbases everywhere it moves into, and where carriers go so do cruise missiles

>>32371372
>what are MEUs and baby carriers
The F-35B is a replacement for the Harrier. If neither exists, the Muhreens are limited to helicopters and Ospreys.

>>32371292
Interesting. What if you were flying over enemy territory when this happened?

>>32371368
Why the fuck should they bother, and who would do it? Again, Fairchild-Republic DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE.

>>32371319
It can't tho.

File: StrawMan2.jpg (91KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x450px

>>32371368
>need F35s for strafing runs
lol no.

>>32371372

the whole point was that they could base F-35s off of the same boats they've got Harriers on now.

>>32371391

it depends. i'd want to get below 18k and point toward good guy land and get over friendly territory as soon as possible. with the possibility of reduced O2 robbing my concentration, i don't really want to low fly either. so i'd probably plug it into max AB or whatever would get back home. however, depending on the scenario i might elect to stay in the AO.

>>32371368

you're going to need a new nose at a minimum if you want a radar so it can be all-weather attack. and a TF radar if you want to drop through the weather safely in all terrain. basically you want a F-15E or F-16 or F-35 capability.

>>32371390
>The F-35B is a replacement for the Harrier.

Yep, a replacement for an aircraft we hardly used and didn't need.

Wow, that sums up the F-35 in a nutshell

>>32371376

ergo its the gun that's cool and the plane is disposable

lets replace the plane and give the new one quad mount

>>32371458
>Let's completely erase a core capability of the Marines because I don't like it!

The only reason the F35b exists is to sell to other countries, literally that's why the variant was made.

>>32371485
Actually the Marines are really into it.

File: 1465521710600.png (262KB, 446x456px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 446x456px

>>32371485
>F35Bs exist only to sell to other countires.
>USMC, RN, and Italy are the only buyers.

>>32371485
>The only reason the F35b exists is to sell to other countries, literally that's why the variant was made.
You mean that only the UK and Italy are buying, and only 138/30 vs the USMC's planned 340? And ~540 planned international orders of the A?

>>32371405
>Fairchild-Republic DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE.
>Hurr durr companies vanish into thin air when they get bought

It's a shame we had to get rid of all those McDonnell Douglas F-15s, F-18s, and Rockwell B-1Bs. If only we could have done something about it.

>>32371455
>all-weather attack. and a TF radar if you want to drop through the weather safely in all terrain
NOT NECESSARY. Why the fuck would you use an A-10 when you don't have visibility? Do you crave death, or are you just a LockMart fuckboi who blindly accepts constant mission creep?

>>32371485
Marines. Also the c and a came second to the b

>>32371549
> Why the fuck would you use an A-10 when you don't have visibility
Hmm, it's almost like the A10 lacks basic capabilities of modern strike aircraft.

>>32371549

see >>32369256 for the idiot who claimed the A-10 has some sort of superior poor-weather capability. it's perfectly capable dropping JDAMs at medium altitude as BOC, but then again so is every other jet that carries JDAMs.

also i think you mean the Boeing F-15, F/A-18, and B-1B.

>>32371549
They aren't in any way the same company, or allowed to do gov contracts anymore because of foreign ownership. Merging with another defense contractor like both McDonnell and General Dynamics is staying in the same business.

>NOT NECESSARY. Why the fuck would you use an A-10 when you don't have visibility? Do you crave death, or are you just a LockMart fuckboi who blindly accepts constant mission creep?
Oh just go fuck yourself and your daylight-only shit, Sprey. We fight 24/7/365 in all weathers and climates, and a plane that can't is garbage and a waste of resources.

>>32371576
Technically the A is the core version, all they really had to do for the B was take out some fuel space.

Even if it never gets replaced by another BRRRRRRRT plane, it will live on eternally in our hearts and ears.

>>32357017
It's outdated. I don't see this thing lasting long in a conventional war against anyone with decent AA capabilities.

With that being said, it should stay in service because it's perfect for wrecking Johnny Jihad and all his little buddies, and that's pretty much the only people I'll ever expect us to fight in the foreseeable future.

File: Inejiro Asanuma.gif (2MB, 420x315px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 420x315px

>>32371390
>Air force has fighters
>navy has fighters
>MUHREENS have fighters
why the fuck do we have three airforces

File: hillary_plays_XCOM.jpg (29KB, 704x332px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 704x332px

>>32367374
At least our guns are safe.

>>32371678
>Airforce handles strategic assets like nuke bombers and air supremacy
>Navy handles force projection
>Marine aviation does Marine stuff
It's really not a hard concept to grasp if you're not 15.

>>32357222
Motherfucker rockets are expensive and you can only use them once.
BRRRRRRRRRT is the gift that keeps on giving.

>>32371800
>Marine stuff
What is marine stuff?

>>32371857
expeditionary aviation until proper facilities are brought online. Pretty much Falklands war style Air Power.

>>32367374
>Like literally everything else he tweets: he keeps being fucking retarded and showing how incapable he is of being President.

>>32371857

Close air support that kills fewer blue targets.

Fixed and rotor wing assets that deploy as part ofseveral rotating elements around the world.

Or something.

The air wing is a weird part of the marines.

T. Former winger 6414

>>32371676
>I don't see this thing lasting long in a conventional war against anyone with decent AA capabilities.
Well, yeah. That kind of goes without saying because anything bigger than a bird going low and slow in a conventional war is toast.

>>32357060
>The A10 doesn't into rockets and bombs

Just wow

>>32371610
>also i think you mean the Boeing F-15, F/A-18, and B-1B.
That's the point you ignorant retard. They didn't just go "lol gotta throw away all the planes now" when the original companies were bought, like you are suggesting. No shit Fairchild-Republic isn't a company anymore, they got bought out and now that company makes A-10 parts.


>>32371615
>Bawwwww I must be able to drop $10 million bombs in sandstorms because Lt. Fuckface is taking pothsots from some goatfucker
>Also I can only use a single aircraft for everything otherwise my country's diseased military industrial economy will implode

>>32372390
>he thinks that anon was criticizing the A-10s inability to carry rockets and bombing

He was criticizing the fact that the rockets and bombs carried by the A-10 can be carried by pretty much every other A2G capable airframe in the USAF.

>>32371458
>>32371485
>>32371372

Did you know that the Harrier operating from small carriers was actually a secondary feature of its design purpose? Did you know that it wasn't just the RN FAA that operated the harrier and is buying the F-35B, but the RAF as well?

The reason for STOVL aircraft is because of bitter experience in WW2 of the vulnerability of large airbases to enemy strikes. This was only reinforced by subsequent conflicts like the Six Day War, where the majority of the Egyptian air force was destroyed on the ground (while runways were attacked with cratering munitions), and the Syrian air force was forced to withdraw from near the front by Israeli strikes on their air-fields. In a conflict against a near-peer like during the Cold War, airbases would be the first enemy target. STOVL aircraft allows you to disperse a portion of your aircraft away from these strikes and continue providing support to your troops.

>>32357189
How to tell if someone is a /pol/tard invading your board, Step one:

>posts Ben Garrison
>Expects to be taken seriously

>>32357482

Step Two:

>posts retarded shit
>harangues everyone who calls him out with niche insults

>>32367621
>Aircraft no longer fire precision guided missiles, drop GBU's, fire rockets, or provide any kind of direct ground attack anymore

Done better by F-16s and soon F-35s

>also aircraft do not perform CSAR or provide FAC

Done better by Predators / Global Hawks

>>32367962
>their guns arent sighted in for ground attack

The F-15E and F-16 have a CCIP gunsight you fucking mongoloid

>>32370654
Poor old Popov 35 must have felt like shit after that, especially as he'd clocked the potential blue on blue only to then be ignored. THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS, SPREY

>>32373476
That has nothing to do with the fact their guns are angled for air to air firing.

>>32373606

and that has nothing to do with the fact that they strafe anyway.

>>32373476
>>32373621
>2016
>not knowing there's a difference between guns sighted in for aerial gunnery, and angled downwards for ground attack
>/k/ is literally this dumb

>>32373638

i'm not sure how the A-10's gun is mounted, but the F-15 and 16 are up-canted about 2 degrees.

you can still strafe anyway.

>>32373646
>i'm not sure how

Clearly

>>32373664

it might be sighted in along the waterline, it might be down canted. i don't know and it doesn't matter.

either way F-15's and F-16's strafe.

>>32357189
>A-10C best for role

No, no it is not. When Ahmed and Abdul can rip you from the sky on demand, you are not in an effective vehicle.

When your main gun has a spread measured by dozens of meters, and a JDAM's deviation is under two meters, you're not going to be doing well against personnel you can't even see. When your plane is only (marginally) effective at its job in an open field, it's kind of a shitty niche platform.

The A-10 was designed to one thing, which is swiss-cheese the ass end of soviet tanks.

I love the A-10, but it's not effective anymore.

>>32360620
>Untrue

Have you seen an A-10 gun run? 30mm impacts like an infant throwing paint on a wall.

>Implications

It was a comparison of precision, not usage.

>>32366155
That Trump doesn't know the difference between cost per unit and total cost of all expenses over the lifetime of the plane.

>>32373682
>When your main gun has a spread measured by dozens of meters

CEP is in degrees, actually :^)

>>32372414
>Hurr I think we need 15 different aircraft when one can do the job far better now durr!

>>32369405
If they fixed it, we wouldn't be having this conversation fuckwad.

>>32373682

Well hopefully Lockmart finds a way to explain it to him in less than 140 characters before he pulls the plug on the F35 project

>>32373704
Somehow people still give Pierre Sprey interviews too, doesn't mean he's ever been right either.

>>32373705
>Implying the president can do that

>>32373682
>>A-10C best for role
>No, no it is not. When Ahmed and Abdul can rip you from the sky

>I literally dont know what an A-10C is

File: MANPADS_improvised[1].jpg (44KB, 673x411px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 673x411px

>>32373778
>This kills the A-10C

>>32373682
>30mm impacts like an infant throwing paint on a wall.
Here is the kindergarten:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvg7qrIiDTM

Redpill me on the Fail35.

Is it a jack of all trades, master of none. Or is it the best jet ever built?

Do foreign nations have anything that can compete?

>>32373956
It's a massive leap forward comparable to the 3rd to 4th Gen leap.

The only fighter in US service with better payload and range is the F-15E.

Nothing else has the sensors and communications capability.

It's a lot cheaper than the EF-2000 and Rafale.

>Do foreign nations have anything that can compete?
No.

>>32373981
How long till it's combat ready?

>>32373984
It's been combat ready for about 17 months

>>32373984
It's already doing exercises with live munitions, it could go to war today if they really needed to.

>>32374001
>>32373993
Can it carry nuclear payloads, or is that just up to what they put in the bombs, like any jet could carry it?

I want president trump to bomb the fucking chinese already.

>>32373956
It's unneeded given the current combat needs the US has. It doesn't matter much. It won't be used at all for anything but close air support, which are lot of other vehicles serve better and more cost effectively.

>>32374004
They're waiting out until the new version of the B61 is up and running before integrating nukes.

>>32373784
Has there been an A-10 loss from a MANPAD?

>>32374031
February 2, 1991

>>32374008
>I don't know what I'm talking about, but I'm confident about it!

>>32373956
Closer to the latter. If you think the former aphorism has any weight with regards to multirole aircraft, you need to stop listening to Spreytards

>>32357222
>Finnish reservist
But you sound like you're just getting started, anon

>>32373981
>It's a lot cheaper than the EF-2000 and Rafale.
Lockheed Martin fag, please. Not only this is false but the F35 is not even deployed yet, its operation cost is unknown...

>>32374061
It's more that idiots keep quoting it incompletely, as it properly ends with "often times better than a master of one."

>>32374160
The FRP price of a complete F-35A WILL be ~$85 million. This is a hard fact.

>>32374167
>WILL be
>This is a hard fact
ok...

>>32374182
Provide proof they aren't going to hit target when they have on every LRIP since 4, and have to eat any cost overage.

>>32357017
Is awesome, but the could mount a better plane to it.

>>32374232
How am I supposed to provide proof for something that doesn' exist??

>>32374280
>Proven they have before
>Literally contractually obliged to provide them at that price, or they pay the difference

L E M O N

>>32374182
FWIW they're now $95 million each now in LRIP 10.

The Rafale C was priced at €68.8 million EUR on the 21st of Nov 2013. The exchange rate at the time was 1.347 USD per EUR, putting the Rafale C at $92.7 million USD, or $96 million in today's dollars. I don't know if the Rafale C's price has changed since then, but that's the last official data point I'm aware of.

According to the German Federal Ministry of Defence website, a Typhoon Tranche 3A was €90.3 million as of June 17th, 2009. The exchange rate at the time was 1.385 USD per EUR, putting the Typhoon T3A at $125 million USD, or about $140m in today's dollars. Same as with the Rafale, I'm sure the price has changed since then, but I don't have any better data points for unit / flyaway cost.

As for the F-35A in the past few years:

In LRIP 9 they're unknown but roughly $100-105 million.
In lRIP 8 they were $108 million.
In LRIP 7 they were $112 million.
In LRIP 6 they were $117 million.

FRP starts with LRIP 12, in about another 2 years, after LRIP 11.

>>32373784
>I literally dont know what an A-10c is

>>32374287
>contractually obliged to provide them at that price, or they pay the difference
Oy vey that's a good deal!
>cry later for the mandatory tech support
>cry later for the high tech spare parts you can't produce yourself
>cry forever for being tied to an ogre
Yeah, no thanks.

>>32374409
So the prices are: Rafale < F-35 < Typhoon
My God the Typhoon is really overpriced...

>>32374409

Hmmm, a UK government report published 15th April 2011 indicated a production cost of £73 million, which is roughly £84.68 million in 2016, which is converts to $105.14 USD today.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmpubacc/860/860.pdf

>2. The Department’s calculation of unit cost per aircraft does not include all
relevant costs. The Department calculates a unit cost of £73 million, based on
production costs alone. However, the inclusion of development costs and the cost of
capital take the total unit cost to £126 million

>>32375634
$105.14 million USD , that is.

>>32374409

Do you still have that image of the F-35 poll from pilots of other planes around?

File: BG-F35A-overview-chart-2.png (79KB, 400x1020px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 400x1020px

>>32375914

No mind, I found it!

>>32357017
Fuck a plane, nigger. We need build a tank big enough to mount twice the BRRRRRRT, size be damned. Ain't no closer air support than being on the fucking ground.

>>32371529
It's marketable for the same reasons the harrier was desirable for nations with small air forces and navies. It'll get more orders once the f-35 becomes more established

>>32376106
>compared to F-15, F-16 and A-10
And what about a chainsaw or a crossbow?

>>32366155
It means that trump is right about something for once. We are too deep now to pull out but holy shit the F-35 should have been strangled in the crib. VTOL on a multi role fighter jet is retarded.

>>32367496
BBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

>>32376215

Unlikely, since the B costs significantly more than the A while having worse specifications outside of STOVL.

The Spanish aren't really in a financial (and political) position to replace their Harriers, and aren't planning on any F-35s at all yet.

The Australians may have ramps on their new (Spanish design) amphibs, but don't really want to operate them as STOVL carriers.

The Japanese may have large heli-carriers, but they won't be able to operate the F-35B without a major refit, as well as constitutional "reinterpretation".

I really can't think of any more countries who might buy the F-35B, who you'd want to sell it to.

>>32376529
Spain will replace It's Harriers in 2025-2027, when they reach the end of their "operative" lives.

The navy seeks to convince the airforce to make a joint bid as the F-18 will also need to be replaced around that time.

Source (In spanish)
http://www.infodefensa.com/es/2016/04/21/noticia-armada-apuesta-sustituto-harrier.html

>>32374409
Just an update, as of an hour or two ago, LRIP 9 (including engine) costs were released:

F-35A: $102.1 million (LRIP 8 was $108m)
F-35B: $131.6 million (LRIP 8 was $134m)
F-35C: $132.2 million (LRIP 8 was $129m - increase probably has to do with mods made; cost should drop considerably once the Navy buys more than ~2 a year)

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/12/33483/

The $95 million figure I mention is for LRIP 10 - it hasn't been fully signed yet, but the primary procurement orders were released last month. That estimate also matches Bogdan's prediction of a 6-7% decrease in cost from LRIP 9.

>>32375163
>So the prices are: Rafale < F-35 < Typhoon
That'd probably be correct if we had more current numbers for the Rafale C, although technically $96m > $95m

>>32375634
Cheers, that £73 / £84.68 million estimate is more reasonable. That £126 million figure would just be the Typhoon's APUC; we're just comparing flyaway costs though as APUCs differ based on who's getting the jet and what their requirements are.

>>32376529
The Japanese constitutional "reinterpretation" already happened (last year I think it was?); they're no longer a defense-only force. Japan will likely hold out on F-35B orders for a while though, Australia as well (although there's still a teeny chance that it'll happen in the future). For Spain see >>32376585.

Other customers for the B include Israel (they've officially requested info on it; they want it so that they can launch from short or damaged airstrips in case their airbases get attacked / have their runways cratered), and also Singapore (same reason, there's a teeny chance they might also operate them from their JMMS).

M282 APKWS is better than 30mm vs APCs, dismounts, and buildings.

Hellfires are better than Mavericks or Rockeyes for tanks (SFWs even more so, for formations).

Mandatory reminders: the A10 was not designed for high-intensity conflict even in its own time period; and the 30mm was not for killing tanks, even in its own time period.

>>32376434
>VTOL
It's STOVL
>VTOL in a multi role fighter jet is retarded
Good thing only one variant is STOVL, and it's the smallest order.

>>32357686
>he says while advocating for the definitive blue on blue murder machine of the air force

>>32358347
Yeah, like that YouTube video where an A-10 doesn't mulch some Brits it's supposed to be supporting by about ten feet because the gun is the best way to confuse targets.

>>32371292
Yeah, I definitely would not feel safe with no oxygen above 14,000 feet. Is 25 the real max, because that's "unconscious in less than a minute altitude."