>This is the U.S. Air Force's idea of close air support

>>33641883
You do know what close air support means, right? Close in relation to friendly forces on the ground, not flying close to the ground.

>>33641893
Hurr Durr I'm fucking retarded

>>33641912
We kinda guessed that

>>33641912
Are you saying I'm retarded or what?

>>33641912
We know

>>33641919
Yes haha

>>33641918
I want nu-/k/ to leave

>>33641924
>I want Nu-/k/ to leave
>hurr durr I'm fucking retarded

You're the retard that can't quote people and makes shitty threads based around misguided opinions that have been debunked hundreds of times on this board alone.


git out

>>33641923
>>33641918
>All these reddit replies

File: ES67xLN.jpg (82KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 300x300px

>>33641912

>>33641893
>>33641912
>>33641919
>>33641924
>>33641938
Are F-35 threads always this shit?

>>33641957
Mostly, yeah.

>>33641957
I kept watch the poster count, this was all the same person.

>12 posts
>5 IPs
(You) sage

>>33641997
Return to Reddit if you don't like it

>>33641957

Pretty much.

File: super-tucano.jpg (45KB, 695x462px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 695x462px

>>33641883
The F-35 is a piece of dogshit. America needs to swallow it's pride and buy Super Tucanos.

>>33643277
And you have to go back.

>>33643306
Super Tucano is the most efficient CAS plane ever created.

>>33641883
>>33643277
>>33643394
>Anons still confusing CAS and COIN

>>33643394
Wrong, the B1 is and that triggers the fuck out of you.

>>33644518
Hell, reaper does better coin than the super cuck.

>>33644525
Well, to be fair the Super Taco does support a broader range of weapons.

File: military-a10_thunderbolt.jpg (1MB, 3600x2395px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3600x2395px

>>33641883
>U.S. Air Force's idea of close air support

If the Air Force finally gets their way and retires the A-10 for the shitty F-35, then American soldiers will pay for it in blood. President Trump should just transfer the A-10 and their pilots to the Army and Marine Corps. Simple.

File: the air force.jpg (84KB, 750x556px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 750x556px

If you want close air support you ask the Navy, USMC, or Army rotary.

The only talent the Air Force has is being fat and committing fratricide.

Pic related will handle your body after the fact.

>>33644525
B1 cannot do effective CAS. It has no cannons or machine guns.

>>33644778
MQ-10 Thunderbolt III when

>>33644805
it doesn't need a gun, most CAS is provided by bombs.

>>33641924
Why are you calling me retarded? Why not try to state a counter point?

Can there just be one day without an F-35 shitpost?

File: 4d0.jpg (167KB, 960x907px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 960x907px

>>33644976
Never.

>>33644778
>Hi, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but that BRRRRRRRTTTTT sure does get my willy hard!

>>33645579
I honestly believe the brrrt meme could not distinguish between the various cannons used by militaries.

gashunk!

>>33644798
And yet the Air Force provides the vast majority of CAS target servicing via PGMs, not guns.

>>33645603
I mean, seriously, the moron suggested transferring them to the Army, a branch without the logistics, schools, or experience operating jets.

>>33642009
Pretty sure you should, famal

>>33644778
What can this bring to the current battlefield that a heli or a F35 doesn't? It's not like we have to stop columns of Soviet armor from pushing through the Fulda Gap.

So what is the tl:dr on these planes for someone who has deliberately avoided these threads because they're cancer? Preferably someone from the AF should answer.

>>33645772
A scenario where the A-10 fleet was expected to be wiped out within 2 weeks attempting to blunt the attack.

>>33646306
They are awesome, they've been owning it at every exercise they've attended recently, and the haters are fucking idiots.

>>33646306
>Generalized replacement for F-16, legacy Hornets, and Harriers
>Entered service with USAF and USMC, navy getting theirs in 2018
>Capabilities somewhat limited with early block software, but it's performing well in excercises so far

Overall, it's a fairly good plane, and, more importantly, a lot of the technology we matured (the stuff that made it over budget and behind schedule in the first place) with the program is applicable to a lot more programs, which should save us money in the long run.

The shitstorm over it has mostly been the result of the DoD being very open about issues with the program, failures to adjust the program properly when they tacked on new requirements, and meme-spewing faggots who want to act like they care about the "issues" without actually having to look into the real problems.

>>33646306
F35 is multi role and expensive. A-10 is a specialist can opener from the 80s. It was designed to counter the Soviet ground forces armour superiority. It was to do this by loitering for extended periods and manoeuvring at low speed close to the ground. This would make it vulnerable to shoulder launched SAMS and AAA but it was heavily armoured and the large wings gave it a tight turn radius so it was able to defeat these threats.

Air threats were assumed to be neutralized by F-15/16's and their NATO equivalents which would overwhelm their Soviet counterparts. A10s would be too low for heavy SAMs like BUK/KUBs long range radars.

Fast forward to today and the long loiter time Hunter-killer anti tank missions never materialised.

In asymmetrical CAS the difference between the 25 and 20mm Canon on most fighters and 30mm tankbuster on the A10 is negligible, both turn ragheads to pink mist. The 30mm's intended use against heavy armour can be done by better missiles with longer standoff ranges (New Mavericks, updated Hellfire variants, updated KH3xx etc.) And the target rich environment of cold war war games won't happen. Even Ivan and Chung are shifting gear toward smaller units of higher tech equipment in coordinated combined arms operations for maximum efficiency.

The threat environment changed too. Thrust-vectoring helps counter the A10s high delta V turns, more efficient rocket motors mean longer SAM range even for small SAMs and better fire control computers make AAA much better combined with improvements in seeker heads and the A10 goes from being able to dodge the few missiles that actually lock it to being very vulnerable.

But it has sentimental/morale value.

>>33646306
>>33646587
2.

Basically the A10 was really cool for the period of time it was designed for and found a niche in more modern US wars as a good CAS platform to truck JDAMs around. But helis are better for even that.

In a conventional conflict it would be grounded until air superiority is guaranteed and suffer massive attrition, more than the F35, in its intended role.

It's trademark looks and BRRRRRRZZZZZZZVVVFFFFFTTTTT soundtrack gleaned it a deserved fan base in active service. Imo an updated variant might be worth for asymmetrical conflict BUT the basic idea of the platform is outdated and it would only be worth keeping on a cost efficiency/morale basis in limited numbers.

In terms of efficacy AACorps AH64s and USMC Cobras serve the same purpose in COIN and can carry potent AT systems so extensive A10 fleets are redundant.

>>33646587
>heavily armoured

>>33645772
>What can this bring to the current battlefield that a heli or an A10 doesn't? It's not like we have to stop columns of Soviet armor from pushing through the Fulda Gap.
Ftfy

>>33646772
As much as an airframe realistically can be.

Mostly it was heavily redundant plus the "bathtub".

>>33646587
>A10s would be too low for heavy SAMs like BUK/KUBs long range radars.
It must be noted though that ZSU/Tunguska/Pantsir type systems shred Warthogs, like what happened in Desert Storm.

>>33646845
Ye, for sure. I mentioned updated AAA. The shit's all radar guided with redundant ir tracking computer aiming death rays of solid tungsten right now.

When the A10 was conceptualized AAA was haphazard, manually aimed or slightly aided crap.

The modern threat environment is just too accurate, too punishing and too consistent for A10/Su25 type aircraft to be viable.

>>33646789
you people are fucking clueless holy shit.

The A-10 did poorly against the Iraqi republican guard in 1991, 2 shot down in one day by early 80s era short range IR SAMs.

This got them pulled out of that battle and replaced by F-16s.

So basically since then the F-16 has been the AC of choice for high threat environment CAS in the USAF.

so to the answer the question: Actual fucking survivability in any environment where the enemy has post 80s era AD and at least Desert storm Iraq tier competence.

Think NorK or Iran.

>>33646920
>When the A10 was conceptualized AAA was haphazard, manually aimed or slightly aided crap.
Not really. Even in Vietnam the USAF was coming to the realization that ECM at medium altitudes would protect them far better than flying below the engagement envelope of SAMs altogether where AAA could hit them. There were plenty of missions that flew the low profile in hopes of avoiding SAMs only to get absolutely shredded by AAA.

That's part of the reason the USAF was trying to get rid of the A-10 as soon as they got it. It was designed for a doctrine that had already proven itself obsolete in Vietnam. The Gulf War just provided the hard proof they needed to back that up.

>>33646975
So youre saying a F-35 doing the exact same missions, the exact same way would have been ideal? It would have performed better?

>>33647007
AAA =/= SAMs, in the context of my posts above. I meant Flak, basically.

You're absolutely right though, in your actual point, I just don't want to be misunderstood below.

>>33645707
>Implying the pilots and logistical support would not follow the plane to new branch.

You're right about the army though..
They'll be fine in the Marines

>>33647008

it wouldn't have to do the missions the same way as it doesn't have the same limitations as the A-10.

But yes, had it had the same missions it would have cleaned up shop.

It can just plink with SDBs from 25K.

>>33646920
The S-300/400, interestingly enough, are a great example of why trying to compensate for lack of aircraft quality, quantity, and pilot training with filler technology just doesn't work.

>>33647348
>"Hey, we just started a war, send in the brrrrrrrrrrrrrt"
>"but sir we havent even taken out a single AA or send in tanks or ground troups"
>"Send in the brrrrrrrrrrrrrrt they will clear the way"

The brrrrrrrrrrrrt has a designed roll. You dont sent it against a s-300/400, it is a support craft. Can it still get shot down? You bet. Same as the people below that called for it, but it has a lot more punch. It is not ment to win against AA, though designed to get back home.. in a bad state. The idea behind it was other planes/bombers/troops took out the threats to it so it could support.

>>33647348
Not wrong, but what's your point in relation to A10 v F35?

>>33647420
The A-10 was explicitly designed to be part of the leading edge; it was designed to fly at low level to avoid radar and had it's titanium bathtub to try and protect the pilot against AAA of the time (which was 23mm).

In a flat desert though, flying low doesn't work very well and now with 30mm AAA, SHORADs and airborne radars data linked to SAMs, flying low just doesn't work well overall.

>>33647420
You're right, but the point is shoulder launched SAMs and AAA which comprise the bulk of cheap integrated ground based AA have reached the level that they would prevent an A10 loitering Hunter killer/CAS mission.

SEAD and ASFs can only reasonably be expected to deal with strategic/operational level assets like medium and heavy Radar based SAMs and air assets.

Even light infantry battalions have attached AA Coys as a general rule and immediate assets like Tunguskas, Shilkas and their western equivalents are sufficient to deny low level CAS missions that were the A10s intended modus operandi.

>>33647420
The A-10 was the Army trying to game the system to get back its own fix-winged Air Force. They don't for a minute believed it would work and were hoping for the slippery slope effect. I don't blame them when the Marines and the Navy have shiny jets to play with.

>>33647558
>>33647595

Say for some crazy reason we have to go into South Africa. How many do you thing have that technology at the ready let along the training to use it correctly?

>>33647477
Basically, Russian IADS has a core flaw in that western stealth and SEAD/DEAD can aggressively erase such systems' capabilities, while no longer operating at low altitude renders the independent shorter range systems impotent.

>>33647654
>The A-10 was the Army trying to game the system to get back its own fix-winged Air Force
Technically no, it was the Air Force trying to defend their funding by rushing in a ground support plane to kill the Army's AH-56 Cheyenne program. With the F-16 they got a more accurate ground attack plane that could get overhead faster and at a further distance than A-10s can fly.

>>33647420
The entire reason behind the A-10s armor was to give the pilot one more extra second to get out of the aircraft should it get hit, all those stories about the A-10 getting back with damage are statistical anomalies. It's confirmation bias, people saw those stories and said "This plane can take punishment" despite most A-10s that have been hit have gone down.
>>33647558
Missiles have been a thing since the 60s anon, it wouldn't have helped back then either. The bathtub was designed to shrug off a few fired rounds from a distance and any backblast fragments of its own bombs, not a full broadside from a shilka.

>>33643277
>Brazil shit.
>Not Air Tractor or Thrush.

>>33647658
The F-35? Yeah there's 3 squadrons between the USMC and USAF that are trained and ready to go; one's been permanently deployed to Japan, another just temporarily deployed to Europe.

>>33647725
Heatseekers in the 60s were somewhat uncommon and shitty, while radars seriously struggled to see through clutter / look at the ground.

>>33647659
You are correct, but in the context of F35 replacement of the A10 the high altitude operating pattern favours the F35.

My point was basically the hug the ground strat is just not how it's done anymore and flying at low altitude is unbelievably dangerous now. This makes the A10 hard to justify with its low strategic speed, aging fleet and airframe built around a heavy gun carriage and structural reinforcement/system redundancy.a

>>33647558

>Be hog pilot flying NOE in the Fulda '83
>crest a hill
>RWR screams
>ranging radar
>oh fuck it's a shilka
>good thing i'm 100% protected against 23mm rounds
>entire aircraft except the cockpit disintegrates in hail of HE-T

>>33647658
As I said in
>>33646737
Keeping a heavily updated variant (a la Super Hornet, a true v2.0) for COIN/asymmetrical conflicts like you're thinking would be my preference.

The A10 has evolved a real niche there, and it IS the kind threat environment it was designed for, and it's good for morale which is heavily pressured in such conflicts.

But the number would be low, every dollar spent on COIN assets is an opportunity lost in a do or die SHTF conventional smackdown. And politically, compromising capability in this area too much means losing and inch off of the "big stick" you're holding.

>>33647925
Drones fill that niche better than the A-10 ever could

>>33647816
>Heatseekers in the 60s were somewhat uncommon and shitty, while radars seriously struggled to see through clutter / look at the ground.
Not shoulder launched in the 70s, that's what took down the A10s in Desert Storm

>>33647961
Maybe A10.2 could be a drone even. But drones atm still lack the same kind of payload.

I also doubt they have same morale impact.

You're almost certainly right just from a point of resources though, actually updating the A10 to the point where it wasn't a free decal in a real conflict would be expensive as would be keeping the old ones flying. May as well grab a few more F35s and be done with it from the USAFs point of view.

>>33648039
By
> drones atm
I mean ones in service right now.

File: 'manpad'.jpg (420KB, 768x621px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 768x621px

>>33647972

'Shoulder launched'

>>33647972
10 years ago (albeit just by 2 months) the iPhone didn't exist.

Serious question: When the F35 is done, since it can fly too high overhead to hear it and still drop ordnance accurately, can we start putting sirens on our bombs so that when the F35 drops them, they reee with the force of a thousand angry shitposters as they plummet back down to earth to deliver their fire and doom?

Someone post the charts that show the f16s providing more CAS than the a10 over the last 20 years.

If an f16 can beat the a10 at its own game, the f35 will do fine.

File: CloseAirSupport_chart2B[1].jpg (331KB, 595x1382px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 595x1382px

>>33648184
JDAMs do already create a bit of a roar / whistle before hitting - from about 10 seconds in (when they start hitting, but before the impact noises arrive at the camera) you can hear it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D_zHRakOXY

>>33648202

>>33648039
There won't be an A-10.2. It's a deprecated role and does nothing other more broadly useful multi-roles and bomber or cheaper drone/COIN planes don't already do better.

>>33647008

Yes. The F-35 is able to slow down its air speed to emulate the A-10s if it for some reason needed to do the job exactly the same and is likewise equipped with a GAU.

But that would be retarded as those tactics are out of date and the only reason the A-10 itself does them is due to limitations.

Now, it's the people who think that the F-35 can do the F-16 or F-22's role that are retarded, but for CAS the F-35 is great for the job.

>>33649714
And the A-10 is the king of friendly fire right now.

These guys got lucky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPvVacN41lY

>>33648054
It's the same missile, just put onto a BRDM chassis.

>>33648091
Good thing heat seeking missile don't need to load apps, make phone calls or triangulate your position using GPS.

>>33649861
They did however have to identify what "hot" was in relation to its environment, while trying to not lock onto flares, or the sun all while using analogue electronics and little in the way of a sensor. Don't underestimate a decade's worth of development, especially during a time when the Cold War was approaching its peak.

>>33648502
Yeah. The morale thing is the only real motivation behind the idea.

From reading soldiers memoirs they did make a big difference to morale. But it would be way too expensive just for a mascot.

>>33641912
and gay

>>33644778
>Marines adopting a CAS plane that will never be able to launch from a ship

>reads the thread
>people kept mentioning A-10 losses in Desert Storm
>look up A-10 losses in Desert Storm, expecting horrific amount of A-10s shot down
>5 fucking A-10s lost after how many ungodly amount of sorties

>>33652190
It was 5 losses in a few weeks, after which they got retasked away from the frontline.

>>33652204
The way people were talking here, I'm half-expecting Schweinfurt Raid-level of losses.

5 aircraft lost (and one actually made it back to the base but was a total right off) within a few weeks is not bad. I remember the RAF losing 5 Tornadoes within a week while attacking Iraqi airfields, but to be expected in such a war.

>>33646920
Speaking of the SU-25, I heard that its main gun has a 200m fragmentation radius and it fucks up the plane firing it.

>>33652238
>and one actually made it back to the base but was a total right off
One made it back to the base, but flipped over and killed its pilot.

>I remember the RAF losing 5 Tornadoes within a week while attacking Iraqi airfields, but to be expected in such a war.
That's relevant to how the A-10s were getting downed; both types of aircraft attacked at low level.

>>33641957

Yes. Blame retarded vatniks.

>>33652238
>I remember the RAF losing 5 Tornadoes within a week while attacking Iraqi airfields, but to be expected in such a war.

RAF lost Tornadoes to active IADS during low level penetration strikes of airfields and infrastructure during the first waves when everything was still up.

A-10s were lost to vehicle based AA and MANPADs a month later.

Its not comparible.

>>33646975
This is bullshit.
https://www.jqpublicblog.com/csaf-misrepresents-a-10-combat-record-in-first-gulf-war/
That is a F-35 meme.

>>33652441
Can post the serial numbers of the destroyed A-10s if you like.

That article is warisboring tier, by the way.

>>33652238
When you look at total numbers of aircraft, the A-10 was a third of Desert Storm losses despite being a tiny fraction of the overall fleet. It's because the loss rate was disproportional.

>>33652486
I know the BUINO numbers.
>hurr any facts that oppose my own is biased.

>>33653402
>opinion piece on a blog
>facts

>>33652238
And that's why JP223 has not been the preferred weapon against airfields ever since.

>>33652238
And if you actually look at assessments of the air campaign, they came to similar conclusions with the Tornado - low-level strikes were not feasible, especially using the special anti-runway munitions.