Why not just replace the A-10 with a F-16 variant? Strengthen

>>32493667

Because the F-16 and A-10 are both going to be phased out at the same time.

>>32493667
No brrrrrt
Engine is flimsy and will kaboom if a missile fragment gets inside.
No, your thread is shit, your idea is shit, and explaining why would take too long.
Sage

>>32493667
They are. The F-35 is the future F-16. Blows your mind, dont it?

>>32493780
A-16 could mount the 30mm cannon, dumbass. Get your subsonic meme plane fanboyism out of here, tard.

It was tried in the 80s, and I'm not sure but a few modified F-16s may have made it to Desert Storm.

The results were less than desirable. The F-16 was too fast to properly aim the 30mm cannon, and the cannon would shake itself loose in its mounting and not hold accuracy.

On replacing the A-10, doctrine needs to be re-evaluated. Do we want another large, low level aircraft with a big gun? Or do we want a medium precision bomber from high altitudes? Do we want a small fleet, or a large fleet?

Just outright replacing the A-10 with something more or less identical is foolish. Times have changed, and the plane should with it.

>>32493667
Real life isn't a videogame. You can't just add plot armor to a plane.

>>32493667
because the A-10 isnt needed anymore. it bombs durkhas without modern air defense ok. but our AF goal shouldnt be "can competently kill things without modern or cold war era AA assets" . a prop plane could drop mavericks too.

Really a lot could be done via drone, or some type of missile launched from a humvee or other platform that can loiter a bit and dive-bomb into a target. i think the SDB-II may have that capability, which would be an awesome way to organically attach CAS to units without waiting/hoping there is a jet in the area that doesnt have to RTB or do something else.

>>32493667
I don't get why they don't just use high altitude blimps with artillery guns in afghanistan, talibans can't hit shit at 20000 feet

File: shrug1.jpg (21KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 620x465px

Just get rid of the Air Force. Problem solved. They bring more problems to the table, while the other branches bring solutions.

Give the Air Mobility and ICBM mission to the Army
Let the Navy handle the air combat missions

The air force is more interested in being a glorified YMCA, so just fire them all and let everyone else take over.

>>32493953
Air Force is unconstitutional as well

File: 1471657540372.jpg (293KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1920x1080px

>>32493887
>Do we want another large, low level aircraft with a big gun?

>>32493953
Former Airforce here. Which branch would be willing to take the rap for the CIA when they use our drones on their missions to kill foreign civilians and leave us holding the fucking bag like assholes?

Im not salty.

>>32493998

Spooky

>>32493950
The sweet spot for blimps versus other transport as far as speed vs range vs cargo is very narrow.

Reaper/Predators are easier to maintain/rearm and already fly at that height. There aren't enough targets killed to justify guns, which get their lighter payload per kill by using a heavier firing device, which would need something heavier than a Predator.

tl;dr common launch tubes FTW.

File: feel.png (59KB, 684x710px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 684x710px

>Risk flying into MANPAD envelope for the BRRRT meme

>>32493997
is there a legal argument to this?

>>32494027
its like you dont think Marines want to kill people anon

F16s are better for interdiction (which is what the USAF thinks CAS is; while ground soldiers say CAS and think it means CCA; which is why people constantly complain about CAS while the USAF feels butthurt and says dumb grunts don't understand).

Loitering beats fast movers every time. Fast movers are just a longer-ranged form of artillery with horridly slow reaction times.

Loitering aircraft, whether helicopters or drones, can do CCA. Wut's that?

CAS as the USAF calls it means "bombing shit close to dudes."
CCA as the Army and Marines say means "looking for targets like you have a brain and are part of the fight, instead of hitting grid points other people tell you."

It's way more effective to fuse the sensor/shooter loop.

Hopefully the F35s super sensors will be good enough to overcome part of this disadvantage for fast jets, but as long as something is a jet, it just doesn't have the time to hang around and fight people who can take cover or conceal themselves from the air.

File: IMG_0650.jpg (266KB, 1800x1458px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 1800x1458px

Never Ever

File: Rockwell B-1 Lancer Aircraft Wallpapers 7.jpg (67KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1600x1000px

How old were you guys when you realized CAS without PGM and hours of loiter time was a meme?

>>32494027
The Marines.

>>32493997
Because there were no planes back then?

Why not replace the panda bear with a black equivalent? Dye patches of fur white, add some love handles, and you should be good to rawr.

>>32494116

Pretty sure interdiction is more useful when you can identify the enemy's logistics and and take them out. Or if you don't give a fuck about civilian infrastructure and and can go ham with it.

Attacking the Ho Chi Mihn Trail wasn't exactly successful, though. For the kind of warfare the US has been involved in lately, there isn't much call for "interdiction" as far as I know.

Loitering Apaches probably cause more damage to actual enemy combatants than anything else in the air.

File: HIV AIDS air force.jpg (227KB, 1000x800px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 1000x800px

>>32494709
There can be planes. USMC has planes. US Navy has planes. US Coast Guard has planes. US Army has planes.

The Air Force has allowed fucking up to be the norm. There is no reason the tax payer should have to foot the bill for a degenerate, barely-functional organization.

>>32494755
> For the kind of warfare the US has been involved in lately, there isn't much call for "interdiction" as far as I know.

of course not.

interdiction is defined as "go to x grid square and kill enemies you see, where x grid square is far away enough to guarantee no friendlies."

obvs most of these squares are superimposed on major transport routes and other high-probability-of-enemy zones.

think highway of death. modern interdiction means zapping dudes crossing the paki border with predators.

>>32494785
So why is it unconstitutional?

>>32494801
>interdiction is defined as "go to x grid square and kill enemies you see, where x grid square is far away enough to guarantee no friendlies."

I thought interdiction was specifically about attacking troops and material that are in their way to the battlefield. But maybe that distinction isn't especially noteworthy. When I think of interdiction, I think of P-47s blowing up trains and bridges all over Europe.


>modern interdiction means zapping dudes crossing the paki border with predators

That's what I was thinking, too. But I wonder how much of that actually targets personnel crossing the border and how much of it just blows up the houses of suspected militants across the border.

>>32493887
I like you

>>32493887
>Just outright replacing the A-10 with something more or less identical is foolish. Times have changed, and the plane should with it.

Come to think of it, the A-10 is and will be a cool plane because there is nothing like it.

>Frogfoot

Well, I guess there's that. Maybe.

A-10s are obsolete.

If your just blowing up kebabs, or already have air superiority drones are cheaper and less risky.

If fighting a modern army ANYTHING that's not stealth is dead meat against anti aircraft missiles.

>>32493997
kys dumbass