Cost beat firepower? For the same cost of puting one A-10 Thunderbolt

reminding that they are both used when the air superiority is guaranteed

File: Snow.png (2MB, 1690x708px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1690x708px

>>33992098
They would be my #1 aircraft if I owned a mercenary company or 3rd world nation. But frankly, they're a waste of good pilots for a 1st world nation like the USA.

>>33992098
Kek how exactly do you calculate the cost?

>>33992108
Yeah that thing just looks like stinger food.

Always wondered why the US didn't invest in cheap aircraft, you could literally put E-5s up in the air with a minimal training pipeline and have them run fire missions on the cheap

>>33992098
BR stink nigger go home. No one wants your shitty ww2 reject.

>>33992140
so is an A-10 or a Helicopter

>>33992149
Looks like US Airforce want it.

lel

>>33992133
Consumption of fuel, price of maintenance, number of people necessary to do the maintenance...

In reality drones are filling the same niche, once they get cheap you will see massive fleets of them being used in offensive combat against trained enemies
Yeah, a Stinger will rip them right out of the sky, but it doesn't really matter if you have 12-20 of them

File: 1493093325910.png (478KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 600x600px

>>33992149
>>33992167

>>33992167
No they don't. That BR shit was dumped on the ANA.

File: at6b_wolverine.jpg (232KB, 1250x800px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1250x800px

>>33992098
>Cost beat firepower?

The A-10 is in the position of being too much for low end work and too little for high end work.

>>33992186
Favela nigger replying to himself.

>>33992140
and the OP picture is the ANA lol hmmm...
>>33992198
BR?

>>33992179

>Sure they have 12-20 drones, it doesn't really matter if we have 200 stingers.

and?

File: 1493093385291.jpg (188KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1462x1462px

>>33992198
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
you will be sucking some brazilian nigger dick lad

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/a-29-super-tucano-to-fly-in-us-air-force-light-attack-aircraft-demo

>>33992232
>demo

Stink nigger please learn how to read instead of using pictures to determine the strange symbols meaning.

File: scorpion.jpg (60KB, 1000x563px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1000x563px

>>33992167
>>33992186
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-air-force-selects-textrons-scorpion-jet-and-at-6-for-light-attack-aircraft-demo

>>33992149
>>33992198
>>33992217
>>33992267
>literally triggered by a fucking plane wew lad

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

1022KB, 2126x1721px

>>33992142
this is a good question, especially when used for COIN ops

>>33992277
A lot of planes were invited, this isn't even a competition, more than one plane can be bought in the future, it is just a demonstration of capabilities

>>33992174
Have you factored in flyaway cost, pilot training,et cetera?

Theres no way operating 30 tucano is any cheaper than an A-10

i have had a prominent hard on for pilatus lately, this is related, no?

>>33992359
it is largely based on the PC21

>>33992142
They're only good for COIN and limited reconnaissance, it must not be a problem to have 1 A-10 instead of a bunch of cheap light attack craft or else they would be using them. Also I think A-10s would prove more valuable in any possible peer to peer scenarios will still being a good COIN attack craft. These cheap light attackers would probably be really bad in peer to peer conflicts.

>>33992354
I really like reading about this shit

A-10 $12.000,00 per hour fight
Tucano $400,00 per hour fight

the A-10 has two big ass engines

It would all but kill the helicopter gunships.
More ordnance than a gunship
More range than a gunship
More speed than a gunship
More loiter time than a gunship or a BRRRT.
More armor than a gunship
Just don't bring it out when we don't completely control the sky.

>>33992443
paging vatnik for shitposting against US ADA

I will never understand /k/'s boner for light attack planes.

>>33992421
This plane is used for colombia to fight FARC for years it's a good atack plane, thr A-10 shines against heavy armored vehicles, since its was a bigger gun, but they can both drop the same bombs.

>>33992098
I don't know, but that thing makes me horny.

>>33992443
i love the thought of it, could really fuck with peoples heads.
would be kamikaze mode tho, US pilots are too snowflake for these things it seems in our current state

>>33992483
why not? you no like fast nimble vehicles?

pilots are worth more than the aircraft so thats why we give our pilots the best planes regardless of the cost

>>33992531
not everyone can justify blowing $$$$ like US mill

>>33992489
What's good for Colombia is not necessarily good for the USAF, different needs and objectives. Why not fly the A-10 instead of some light attacker, not like the USAF is in dire need of funds.

>>33992527
Yes, that's why I like 4th and 5th gen fighters. Not cheap solutions for minor problems.

File: downed super tucano.jpg (57KB, 512x341px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 512x341px

>>33992098
Sure lets take a WW2 throwback that gets shot down by narcos with M2s and put in airspace where 14.5 mm AA guns and MANPADs are the norm. Thats what USAF pilots need, the risk of getting downed by Dskhs and KPVs.

>>33992296
>Being a BR stink nigger who's country's accomplishments is monkey people and a faggy prop plane.

>>33992565
fighters will operate at similar costs right? this rig serves a slightly different purpose, plus they're just cool BECUZ not expensive fighterfag

the U.S. generally speaking doesn't like single engine aircraft, especially for the role this aircraft seeks to fill. I.E. getting shot at.

>>33992572
what we're really going for here, is a new definition of "pilot" and what is necessary to become one,
if dude wants a fastrack to flyin crazy shit with high risk of getting shot down, it sounds like a good plan to me.

>>33992585
Apparently Maine is Brazil now, grown the fuck up end leave your basement. Fat, lonely loser.

>>33992625
Because DoD will totally go for that. Put pilots at risk so they can get disemboweled on liveleak like Russian pilots of the past.

damn it feels good loving on this craft, but i love a10's...whats wrong with me? am i a complete failure?

>>33992604
>what is the U-28
Different role I know, but you've got 3-4 jabronis onboard a single engine aircraft flying over some of the most hostile regions on earth.

>>33992648
contractors?

>>33992599
Its the USAF, who cares about cost?

>>33992670
>jabroni
why the fuck do i know that word but can't think of context of who and where i know it from? the fuck do i know you anon?

>>33992671
No your idea is not cost saving and would impact public confidence on what ever operation DoD was attempting.

>>33992695
taxpayers?
seriously though cost doesn't seem to be an object
>>33992710
they might not needta know

>>33992710
wars don't need public confidence where we're going anyway

>>33992731
Nobody cares about the cost, not even the taxpayers who seem completely ok with blowing a load of tomahawks on a sandy airfield. Not until some politician uses cutting the fat out the budget with some Sprey level bullshit about the F35.

>>33992706
4chan used to filter some word to jabroni.

In the military, at least in my squadron, we regularly use the word jabroni/jabronis to describe 1 or more individuals.

>>33992763
i know and i'm disgusted by it

>>33992731
Because you can hide losing what the public would see as WW2 surplus and tell them to not watch liveleak videos of pilots being mutilated ISIS. Great idea champ.

>>33992754
Lets give them less confidence. Hell lets give our soldiers shittier gear to save some pennies while we're at it.

>>33992765
ok now i remember thanks

>>33992098
That would only be factoring in something like damage output, and even then, it's not very accurate. A single A-10 is definitely worth a few Tucanos, and it also has a more diverse payload delivery in terms of its canon and it's ability to hold a vast array of munitions.

You're also using an image that is 2 seater, so 30 Tucanos means 60 humans.

Further, you're not accounting for survivability.

Sure, at some point there is an advantage to just having a lot of something, but a better something is pretty great too.

Like, a few Special Forces guys against a shit ton of Somalis. Or a well trained army against China.

Quality is superior to quantity, within reason.

>>33992783
why you so mad? i thot the rule was only when we own airspace?
you seem to have an agend,
while i just learned news of this when opening this thread

the thing that you retarded low cost procurement jews don't understand is the logistics of having so many of "X" air frames is not always beneficial. One A-10 is more effective than multiple Super Tucanos. Even if straight up cost wise it's a 1:30 ratios, if you lose 5 Tucanos trying to destroy 1 T-72 you're still worse off. You're gonna have to replace or recover pilots, deal with lost air frames, negative publicity over loses when one A-10 could have done the job and returned home.

You also need physical space on airbases for all these cheap ass planes, maint. facilities, trained personnel, ordinance. In the end it's cheaper and better to just have one effective aircraft that can do the job instead of trying to zerg your enemy to death in Cessna 172s with Hi-Points taped to the wings.

>>33992823
>Hurrr u mad? my meme idea is great and shit

>>33992781
I'd only be disgusted if that taxpayer money wasn't being used to give our pilots the best rides available, flying some prop attack plane like a third world shithole is unAmerican.

>>33992798
The A-10 is overkill for insurgency, same reason US didn't deploy the F22 for any treat, these planes aren't unsafe or bad cheap doesn't mean bad quality.

>>33992832
you're right but small prop planes painted green are still badass, so fuck off

>>33992098
>tfw air combat will never again be as cool as WW2
>no matter how advanced our technology gets
You all know it's true.

>>33992904
The F22 has been deployed though, there's even an article about a couple of Raptors spooking a Syrian pilot.

Yes, the A-10 wasn't designed specifically for COIN but it can still perform that any other mission profiles. While a light attack plane can't do anything but COIN, and some recon.

>>33992098
if that's all you're concerned with why not just bring back and modernise the skyraider?

>>33993108
This, I'd actually support prop war planes in America again if it was an updated sky raider with a missile defense system of some sort and extra chaff. Or it fly's with an ECM warfare plane escorting them.

>>33993108
because nothing is "brought back" in our culture, hence jeep will never make a new production cj5.

>>33993108
but damn that thing is cool

>>33992999
Nah I can live without boring ass prop planes and their slow turn wars.

>>33992421
They're only good for COIN and limited reconnaissance, it must not be a problem to have 1 A-10 instead of a bunch of cheap light attack craft or else they would be using them. Also I think A-10s would prove more valuable in any possible peer to peer scenarios will still being a good COIN attack craft. These cheap light attackers would probably be really bad in peer to peer conflicts.

>They are only good at what the U.S. military has done exclusively for close to 70 years

File: 4845661711_4413990006_z.jpg (194KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 640x480px

>>33992098
Fuck the tucano.

>>33993209
>having to be a better fucking pilot, outmaneuver your opponent, and blow them away with machineguns
>boring
And pushing a button to fire a missile is totally more exciting?

>>33993397
and the A-10 is better at it because they're less likely to be downed by MANPADs and 14.5 mm AA

>>33993490
Way more exciting

>>33993129
>nothing is brought back

except the McRib and Disney franchises

File: I still love you please try to be happy.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

Im a firm supporter of the super tucano or similar light aircraft that just has lots of firepower and is used like a gun chopper for air to ground support exclusively
>muh AA!
>its gonna get shot down!
yeah. and humvees can get flat tires if the driver doesnt avoid running over a bed of nails.
I mean Im sure these things are vulnerable. but spending billions of dollars on something dipped in titanium that can sink battleships isn't the answer.
The risk/reward is so fucking worth it. doesnt make sense it didnt happen years ago.

NOW THE REAL QUESTION
>why the fuck havent ANY of the branches developed a fucking floating 40mm platform?
it fucking defies belief. Ive started threads on it and there is no fucking excuse. you dont need a drone that can take out cold war tank rushing tactics.
take a fucking cheap stable platform that can be deployed by boots on the ground or at least permanent flyover that can react to hotspots.
slap a FLIR and some optics.
rain down 40mm on dark skinned people for pennies on the dollar. if it gets shot down so what. it cost as much as a toyota corolla and has taken out 6 dozen sand niggers hiding in the hills with old mosins.
honestly why hasnt anyone just made a fucking cheap 40mm platform?

>>33993777
>Guys lets retire planes, buy shittier planes and start accepting shoot downs as normal in an age where pilots are almost obsolete.

>what do you mean it costs money to train pilots

>Hey guys the M1 tank costs a lot, Lets un retire the M48 Patton!

>>33992421
>Also I think A-10s would prove more valuable in any possible peer to peer scenarios

By peer to peer scenarios you mean in permissive airspace of a peer to peer scenario, which makes it's advantages moot.

>>33993822
>start accepting shoot downs as normal in an age where pilots are almost obsolete

Anon argues to retire the A-10 without realizing it.

>>33993896
The F-35 is a good enough replacement and no one is auguring to replace a new aircraft with the A-10, moron.

File: rustled.jpg (50KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 512x384px

>>33993822
allright UPS lemme pitch this to you.
those boxy functional utility trucks you guys have been using to efficiently ship packages for years and years?
well WHAT IF somebody orders a fully assembled ice hockey table? or 36 drums of motor oil? or a fully assembled dinosaur skeleton? what are you gonna do then huh?
What we need is a hybrid Semi trailer truck combined with a performance sports car to be able to handle these eventualities. I've spoken to peterbilt and ferrarri and they are both on board to help us develop the fleet of performance delivery trucks.
I know 98% of your business is just shipping these small packages and parcels everywhere and instead you could just rent out a semi trucking for larger jobs on a contract by contract basis.
But trust me. this is the solution we need to focus on.
>Guys lets retire planes, buy shittier planes and start accepting shoot downs as normal in an age where pilots are almost obsolete.
thats the 40mm drone solution I was talking about. also the fucking benefit of not having to wait 6 hours for an apache to roll in is worth it.
>what do you mean it costs money to train pilots
yeah. it costs money to train cooks also. super tucanos are fucking flying tractors. those are WW1 bi planes. you could toss me the keys to a chevy and I could get you where you need to go. ask me to win an F1 race in a formula one car and Im pretty sure Im dead. teach evasive maneuvers, and do what you can to absolutely minimize AA threat before deployment.
>Hey guys the M1 tank costs a lot, Lets un retire the M48 Patton!
yeah and the M48 would have been a welcome addition to Iraq or Afghanistan when some dudes on the ground needed firepower instead of waiting for an overextended armor division to spare some time and make its way over to them.

now answer my question about the 40mm platform

>>33992098
yes and it should have happened 30 years ago.

>>33993822

>I'm 18 and can't grasp the value of high-low force structure, maintaining bleeding edge equipment in case we fight peer opponents, while having a shitload of "good enough" cheap equipment around so units have an excess of organic firepower, still far superior to everyone we actually fight.
>Please rape my face.

>>33994824
he's the kinda guy that believes what the fucking car dealer is telling him
extended warranty, all the bells and whistles, 10 times the cost for a fucking 4% increase in performance
or in this case the need for super stealth fighter attack aircraft that can also take out tanks and fly above AA and turn around to drop a JDAM on a bunker then go back to dog fighting chinese space nazi jets or whatever the airforce and navy and army are selling as the boogey man

we coulda fucking had some cheap low cost gunships in the air all through the past couple of decades. in fact this shit shoulda been determined after Desert Storm in 92.
>90% of air support is to deal with lightly armed foot mobiles and dudes taking pot shots with mortars or rifles.
>well we are gonna need an F-35 launching from an aircraft carrier armed with hellfires and sparrows to take care of that even though its gonna cost millions of dollars and be less efficient and unable to provide 1/10 as ample coverage

>>33994824
>>33994872
Stopthe fucking presses. Memers on 4chan know better than the US Air Force. Somebody call Donald Trump and get these two chucklefucks buying our boys the latest in 3rd world bargain bin shit for the meager savings! Who cares if we start losing pilots at rates never seen since Vietnam? It's the memes that count!

>>33994994
>What is the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance Program
>What is awarding the A-29B designation

The US is looking into these sorts of planes for exactly the reasons the other anons mentioned.

The problems were really highlighted in Afghanistan and in Post-War Iraq. It takes time to move get the bureaucracy moving. It takes time to recognize the problem, develop requirements, etc. Just because they haven't got on in service right now doesn't mean they don't see merit in the concept.

what the hell is the point of a Tucano when you have Apaches

>>33995231
Apache's cost almost $4000 per flight hour, Tucano costs literally 1/10th of that.

Tucano also has better range, twice the endurance and is faster. Which are all things you want for the role.

>>33995231
Its BR memers and WW2 freaks that think aesthetics matter more than practicality.

>>33992483
BIAFRAN BABBIES

>>33992625
There will be no shortage of Toc jockies. Too many asses, not enough seats and all that, plus it looks like so much fun.

>>33992142

Because they're old and gross and icky and they retired their own props far too early and it would be stupid to try and rebuild that subbranch from scratch.

If the US wants to use cheap aircraft, it has the F-16 and Scorpion.

>>33992572
>what is stand-off
>what is PGM
WWII is over duude.

>>33992832
A-10C is not better at all in destruction of T-72 and returning home. It is actually worse as it lacks dedicated FLIR operator. A-10 (without C letter) is just piece of shit comparing Super Tucano but USAF still used it despite A-10 been piece of shit.

>>33992098
It'd be a good idea to invest in this shit--it'd also make for great optics. The Americans have a nigh-unlimited budget and they're big into that "shock and awe" shit, there's not much more awe inspiring than turning everything into the Battle of fucking Britain with 5000 planes swarming overhead.

>Look up
>Sky is literally covered in star-spangled winged dicks
>fug

>>33995385
>Scorpion
What? The Textron one? Because thats in the same position as the Tucano right now.

>>33992625
Assuming all of their attacks are in a high speed, vertical bombing run as long as they hit quickly a fly low on the way out they should be okay.

Well I guess if the enemy has MANPADs that might be a problem, but I'm assuming it's got countermeasures

>>33995385
>If the US wants to use cheap aircraft, it has the Reaper
>it even has prop
Fixed.

>>33995581
>Reaper
Still a $3,600 cost per flight hour. How the fuck does the AF do it? Everything is hugely expensive.

I know the A10 is old, and Reapers are complicated but fuck, they could figure out how to make a Cessna cost $10k an hour.

>>33992489
A-10s gun doesnt matter anymore against tanks
it never did

120mm RHAe penetration at 1000 yards is just not that impressive when you could have a few Mavericks more or Hellfires

>>33992483
Because they are cheap enough to be only just out of reach for a well of kommando

>>33992221
The ANA has air superiority as long as we're around, and the Tucano is better than most anything else they could afford even after we leave.

>>33992142
>2nd classes get the chance to be meat shields for officer pilots

The only people who'd do that are topsiders and thats because they're mentaly handicapped.

Wait actually this is a fantastic idea AOs are cancer.

>>33995412
The T-72 has at least one 12.7 mm gun that is proven to take out Tucanos with ease.

>>33995412
Its better in every conceivable way except range, and operating cost which is only a concern if you don't have an unlimited budget. BRs, we do not want your monkey plane.

>>33992098
The US or rather any developed cou try will never invest on a large scale for something that cannot be used in symmetrical warfare.

File: dyapewdfuxmrni81nxaa.jpg (58KB, 800x487px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 800x487px

Why not use the Bronco?

>>33995804
Why not use an A-10, Apache, or a F16?

File: AHRLAC.jpg (384KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1920x1080px

Why not AHRLAC?

File: 1494102759678.png (166KB, 687x722px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 687x722px

>>33995606
>120mm RHAe penetration at 1000 yards
lol

>>33995710
>entering 12.7mm gun engagement envelope
What are you stupid? Or are you flying A-10?

>>33995778
>It is actually worse as it lacks dedicated FLIR operator.

>>33995815
Because turboprops are cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, have less maintenance downtime than helicopters (and a better survival rate vs small arms), and can take off on dirt.

But desu ARES class drones are the future of CAS.

>>33995923
>Cheaper
I guess that's a selling point if you're a Jew or some third world nation

>>33995778
Your mother get fucked by a Brazilian, mate?
You're fucking worse than the Hue-fags fags are.

Also you're wrong - its endurance time is fucking abysmal, it's main weapon is irrelevant for the role it was designed for, and even after modernization it still lacks basics that should be standard.

As long as it can carry effective weaponry, endurance time is the most important attribute for the role.

>>33995606
That cannon can still rip up IFV's and APC's, saving heavier ordnance for MBT's

>>33995935
Downtime is the main selling point vs the USA.

Helicopters have 5x the downtime and half the loiter time. So you could buy 2 Tucanos per helicopter and get 20x the air support. Air support covering every patrol, instead of having to call it in when a firefight starts and then wait half an hour for it to arrive.

>>33995960
>saving

Exposing the aircraft to more risk per shot wastes money when it increases aircraft losses. Same reason smart bombs are cheaper to use overall than saturation bombing.

Guns are penny-wise pound foolish. Instead of lining up a gun run on a convoy full of DshKs, just pop a Brimstone salvo and turn around.

>>33992098
That's flyaway cost. Include cost of maintenance (running costs, replacements, and ground crew training and upkeep), pilot training, and so forth, and the picture changes. Good crews are hard to train, unless you're comfortable throwing poorly trained conscripts into battle with expensive equipment you should reconsider.

>>33992443
Can't loiter behind a hill, lobbing F&F missiles guided by a mast sensor.
So not entirely.

>>33993476
Air tractors may not be the most aesthetic but they do a damn fine job.

>>33995982
To add to what you said anon, 80% of CAS is done with PGMs now.

>>33995997
He's actually talking about Cost per Flight Hour which includes most of what you listed.

Flyaway cost comparisons are hard to quantify because A-10 production stopped in '84, ones a sunk cost and the other isn't, and the local industry isn't the same as it was then - Fairchild doesn't even exist anymore.
As you say though, recurring costs are more important than flyaway costs - after 1000 hours, an A-10 has cost enough to buy 2 new Super Tucanos.

>>33992098
why is every propeller blade i see nowadays hartzell?

>>33995982
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyaIrhGrCzo

Or SDB-IIs.

File: Last Enlisted Pilots.jpg (470KB, 1800x1420px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 1800x1420px

>>33992125

>But frankly, they're a waste of good pilots for a 1st world nation like the USA.

Then train enlisted men or Warrant Officers to fly them. Make pilots more disposable.

>>33992098
>thirty A-29 Super Tucanos

drones are the future

for the cost of 30 a-29 st's why not send 200 weaponized drones ?

>>33992098

Does your cost include training, paying and housing 29 pilots?

>>33996717
>Make people disposable
or just don't bother with the Super Tucano

>>33996793
>drones
Drones have a higher unit cost and higher cost/hr.

>>33996827

maybe but the pilots don't die when the drone gets destroyed

pilots are video game players & don't need the phenomenal amount of training (ie cost $$) that real pilots do

plus drones can be automated to fight in swarms

really how well would an F35 fare against 50 drones, assuming they were fast enough or could sneak up ?

>>33992149
Almost 70% of this plane is american you racist dipshit, it is build in the US, US can even veto a buyer, even if they were 100% brazilian they are important allies, if everyone was a cunt like you they could just buy the avionic and radars from Russia.

If the US for one reason or another does adopt some unnecessary COIN attack aircraft I pray its the Textron Scorpion and not some prop shit assembled by Brazilian monkeys.

>>33997677
>assembled by americans in Jacksonville, Florida
fuck, are the guy from the beginning? get a job loser.

File: kid.jpg (298KB, 3000x1688px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 3000x1688px

>>33998064
job? he is probably this kid

>>33996890
>really how well would an F35 fare against 50 drones, assuming they were fast enough or could sneak up ?
Well its got 3 seconds of gunfire, so that's maybe 4 or 5 with luck.
It has 10 armarment points, so that another 10.

So assuming the drones aren't trying to jihad and actually have guns/missiles/rockets and the f35 refuses to retreat and can't rearm, there would be no hope for the f35.


Modern aircraft are fine for fighting ~equal numbers of modern aircraft and shitskins, but an intelligently designed air force would destroy any modern airforce.
The role of planes is missile carrier. You don't need a physical pilot. Dozens of millions of dollars to carry 10 missiles, or dozens of millions of dollars to carry hundred/s of missiles.

If you make a swarm, then you don't need to worry about stealth because you're a giant cloud of aircraft. If you need to put missiles somewhere where you need stealth, then you launch a missile instead of a missile carrier. Plus, it's no longer 1950, aircraft fight aircraft with missiles, not guns. Gun are for soft targets.
Drones/swarms could intelligently and efficiently use guns. Less wasted ammo, and more hits.

Basically, we need to modernize project pluto. The appeal of aircraft based missile carriers over missile based missile carriers is the loiter time.
So if you need immediate response and there are no aircraft in the area, then you launch a missile carrier missile to launch missile during a relatively brief window of time, and then bring the missile carrier missile back to be rearmed (think falcon 9).

Think of the possibilities. Missile carrier carriers, they've already proven a rocket can land at sea.


>tl;dr
we need to develop mid-air rearming because there is absolutely no (better) alternative to meme-gen fighters.

>>33998340
Max A2A loadout is 12 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinder right now. And likely at least 28 CUDA/SACM missiles when those enter service.

And here's the more important thing: It can passively track and target planes for other launch platforms, such as F-15Es, B-1Bs, and AEGIS cruisers.

>If you make a swarm, then you don't need to worry about stealth because you're a giant cloud of aircraft.
Well, there's a new Gliders grade claim.

>>33998528
>Well, there's a new Gliders grade claim.
I mean, that there is no point in even trying to make a giant cloud of aircraft stealthy.

>>33992156
A10's are much tougher and have better ECM.

>>33998721
Stealthy will ALWAYS beat non-stealthy. Period. There is no question on this.

>>33995606
The engine compartment of modern tanks is big and not very well armored from the top, one 20mm penetrates it and you've got yourself a disabled tank.

>>33998340
>and the f35 refuses to retreat and can't rearm, there would be no hope for the f35.

So in a fantasy world?

>>33998806
>t. ww2 airfag

>>33998806
http://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK

Tanks were getting really hard to kill with 30mm even in the T-62.

File: Leopard_2A5_engine_compartment.jpg (125KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 800x600px

>>33998846
Look at that juicy thin plate. Also as that other anon earlier stated, apc's, ifv's, and simple transports far outnumber tanks on the battlefield and are great targets.

>>33998906
The chance of even getting that kind of shot in a real modern force-on-force with guns is infinitesimal, though.

PGMs are the real tank slayers, both from aircraft outside the range of unit point defense like MANPADS and PANTSIR and shoulder-launched weapons like the Javelin.

>>33998936
at 1800 rounds a minute coming from a high angle actually no, it isn't that hard to get a hit. During the gulf war the a10 didn't score many kills on tanks with the gau 8 but often disabled tanks through either an engine kill or disabling the tracks, not to mention the massive stress it places on the crew if they manage to survive unscathed.

>>33992585
There are full on Wehraboo /pol/acks ITT that aren't sperging out as hard as you are right now. The Super Taco is a cool little COIN plane for what it does. If you want a competitor made in the US, look at restarting OV-10 Bronco or A-1 Skyraider production with modern avionics.

>>33998978
And the vast majority of their tank kills were with Mavericks.

And the one time they tried an as-designed low, direct attack against a halfway decent force equipped with point defense they lost two, 10 or so were grounded, and they had a couple with holes in them that were still OK to fly.

>>33992442
What manner of communistic bisexuality made you swap the commas and the periods in those numbers?

>>33992604
The Navy doesn't. The Marines and Air Force are fine with single engine aircraft.

>>33995355
Except the air force is facing a major pilot shortage, there are too many seats for asses across the entire fleet.

>>33992904
Doesn't the f22 literally suffocate pilot a with shit hvac they never fixed?

>>33993038

COIN is similar to recon and counter-recon. There is also just straight up patrolling perimeters and light resupply missions for specops.

>>33999018
Oh my god, Aircraft were lost! How could this be possible? Plenty of aircraft that only used missiles were lost too.

>>33999004
It can be the cool little COIN plane for countries that need it, America doesn't need it. Erroneously saying 30 Super Tucano for 1 A-10, and trying to redefine US aerial doctrine is what stirred the hornet's nest.

>>33993777
> itll cost like a Toyota Corolla
This is the modern army, it will cost as much as a huayra, and shit s-class price special ammo. At this point I really want a radical insurgency to beat the us domestically just so we can see what unjewed procurement looks like.

>>33996890
pilots are video game players & don't need the phenomenal amount of training (ie cost $$) that real pilots do

Hi anon, going through the RPA pipeline over here. You're retarded and just wrong.

>>33999078
>The Navy doesn't.
They're fine with it on the F-35C. The "requirement" for it on the F-18 was mainly to avoid having to have the same plane as the Air Force.

>>33999099
It was a disproportionate, easily avoidable loss, dipshit.

>>33999152
>

here I think you dropped this.

Why are helicopters or drones not more effective than these planes?

>>33998340
Can't you just hack drones out of the air? Didn't sand people do this to us?

>>33992098
Does anyone ELSE want one of these just for joyrides and commutes and shit? I could take another person, the military style cockpit tickles my fancy, hell, It's like everything good about prop planes save for counter rotating props and redundant engines went into this.

>>33992098
Won't happen, ever.

The biggest win the kinds of insurgents we're fighting today can have is the shootdown of an American plane or the capture of an American. Thus, that's something the US is desperate to prevent. Even if it weren't such a stunning victory for them it would still be a stinging blow to the US Government. These single-engine super light attack aircraft are, like it or not, far more vulnerable to ground fire than a two-engine turbofan A-10 or a jet at 30k ft.
As such, the US is never going to field these, ever. Hues buy them to kill drug lords, and the US will buy them to give to Afghanis and Iraqis and whatever other durka we're supporting this Tuesday, but Americans won't pilot them in combat because while we don't care how many Afghanis die in them we absolutely care how many Americans die in them; the only acceptable number of USAF pilot casualties is 0. The low, slow, fixed-wing attack role is going to be performed solely by drones with precision munitions within a few decades, and there most likely will never be a USAF acquisition of a manned aircraft intended to fill that roll (besides buying them to train Afghanis). No matter how cheap the cost is in $, the risk of losing even a single pilot in today's environment is considered a cost far too high.

File: 1456857835792.jpg (45KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 554x439px

>>33999313
>what is helicopters

>>33999390
They're certainly not
>low, slow, fixed-wing attack
if that's what you're asking.

>>33992156
when a heat-seeking missile with a proximity fuze goes after an A-10 it goes for the hot engines and blows up near it, result: engine probably lost, but you might be able to limp back to base/the very least you are alive because the explosion happened towards teh end of the heavily armored plane.

Now the same missile goes after Super Tucano it explodes practically in the pilot's face: chances are the pilot is wounded, the visibility is zero with the engine now on fire and the canopy full of holes through which the smoke from the burning engine can enter the cockpit, did I mention that the pilot is probably wounded, possibly unable to bail out?

>>33993963
Not the dude you were talking to but I'll bite.

>yeah and the M48 would have been a welcome addition to Iraq or Afghanistan when some dudes on the ground needed firepower instead of waiting for an overextended armor division to spare some time and make its way over to them

Why so we can start losing tank crews to fucking RPG-7s? Crew survivability is more important than zerg rushing everyone like it's the god damn Eastern Front.

>now answer my question about the 40mm platform
1) It's big and heavy and infantry units can't move it around.
2) It's going to be hard as fuck to maintain during extended combat deployments.
3) If deployed in a mechanized infantry unit, you're basically burning up a whole truck in order to just carry the damn thing.

The reason you've made all those threads and everybody thought it was a stupid idea is because it's actually a stupid idea.

>>33998784
>There is no question on this.
Sure there is.

Volume is never going to supersede precision.

>>34001910
Pretty sure when throwing a 1000ml graduated cylinder at a bucket, the bucket comes out on top.

>>33993476
Sturmovik?

>>33996793
Drones are easily defeated

>>33996793
Why does everyone think drones are magic. Theyre fucking expensive.

>>34002046
Are expensive, will become much less so in the near future.

>>34001446
>a10
>heavily armored
Kek

File: 1476492783069.png (319KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 640x360px

>>33992098

Super Tucanos are actually multi-role air-superiority fighter propeller-jets.

They beat both cost and firepower.

>>33993777
This pic...
Checked

>>33995606
120mm is huge against every other sort of armoured target though. MBTs make up a fairly small % of any battlegroup. Not to mention this is the Air Force. They're not limited to combat with heavily armed and armoured frontline units.

>>33993490
>>33993614

Kids these days really do only care about explosions. But at least we're getting lasers eventually.

>>33995630
Lmao you think the ANA is capable of producing pilots? It can barely produce infantrymen.

If we give them any planes they'll sell them to Pakistan the second we look away.

>>33999390
Apaches fly in pairs or more and almost exclusively at night. They also usually occompany OFFENSIVE ground operations.

Their role is completely different from daytime COIN air support.

>>33992125
What about for CAS in low threat enviroments?

>>34004988
What another anon said: Acceptable number of pilots killed or captured during war = 0

>non threatening environment
>needing CAS

Think through things before you post. Any environment needing CAS is going to be potentially dangerous to a single engine prop plane.

>>33999041
He's probably European or studied in Europe, so he used the superior system. today is the 19.05.2017 btw

>>33999313
You do know that the Super Tucano is only about 70mph (20%) slower than the A-10 at max, and only 20mph (5%) slower at cruise right?

And that its service ceiling is 35,000 ft?

>>33993963
>>34001679
Did he mean 40mm cannon or 40mm grenades? I assumed he meant the latter, because the former is retarded.

>>34001910
They use literally the same PGMs.

>>33995804
with the under fuselage turret? yes, please.

A-1A Skyraider with modern avionics for monkey airforces

>>33992604
What is the f-35

>>34005008
>non threatening environment
>needing CAS

So you're saying that durkas taking pot shots at a patrol isn't something that CAS is useful for?

>Acceptable number of pilots killed or captured during war = 0
>Any environment needing CAS is going to be potentially dangerous to a single engine prop plane.

Which is why we use helicopters right?

>>34002230
>cockpit armor ranging from 13 to 38mm, which is a lot for a fixed-wing aircraft
>not to forget that the cockpit armor makes up 6% of the plane's empty weight, which I'd call "heavy"

>>34004831
Even with this measures NATO crashed ungodly amount of helicopters (considering opposition of goat herders) and plans to crash even more. So casualties point is bogeyman. (well not fully AF's want to be excluded from dirty work lol)

>>33994824

"Good enough" is not good enough.

Slap what happens when we suddenly do have to face of against a peer or even semi-peer like Iraq? Hell all it would take is for the camel jockey to get their hands on a bunch of MANPADS and then the entire section of our armed forces that are "good enough" would be sidelined.

>>33999004
>Modern A-1 Skyraider

MY BODY IS READY

FOUR TWENTY MILLIMETER CANNONS, FIFTEEN HARDPOINTS

If we brought back the A-1, would we resume the usage of Napalm?

>>34005195
What exactly do you think a CAS call entails, like how do you think they accomplish their mission when called out to support a patrol?

>>34005808
In the Iraq War 03-10, there were 137 rotary wing aircraft lost. 47 to hostile fire, that's not an ungodly amount but losses are still unacceptable.

>>34002230

are you retarded?

>>34001906
>Sure there is.
There really isn't. Harder to detect will always be better than easier to detect.

>>33992531
>>33992625
>>33992648


Can't disembowel a computer.

15 years max, and aircraft are piloted by AI.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/06/ai-fighter-pilot-beats-human-no-need-panic-really/amp/

>>34006065
>137 rotary wing aircraft lost. 47 to hostile fire
Exactly so different from autistic screeching: "even one casualty is not acceptable, skies will fall down and rivers will flow back if that happens!"

>>34006097
I wonder if they'll get banned before that though. Already a surprisingly large amount of hubbub about banning AI in combat roles.

>>34006097
>Computer beats human pilot in video game
>No human stakes
>No worry about accountability
>No worry about ethics

>>34006099
That's for all armed forces in the Iraq War, not just the US Army. Most losses were lightly armored light attack and recon choppers like the Kiowa, something like 10 lost to hostile fire. So something lightly armored that's low and slow like the Super Tucano even though its fixed winged could suffer a similar fate.

>>34006160
>low and slow like the Super Tucano
>>34005032

>>34006192
Low and slow.

>>34006231
>reading comprehension

>>34006281
>Slower than the A-10, the slowest aircraft of the USAF
>Lower Service Ceiling than A-10
>implying you fly at the plane's service ceiling

>>33992223
Stingers are just a type of drone.

>>34006308
The only reason speed and altitude are relevant to CAS/COIN planes is to avoid MANPADs and AA.

35000ft is high enough to make MANPADs irrelevant when overflying the battlefield. When delivering payload, the two planes would be at the same altitude, given they deploy literally the same munitions.

The A-10 isn't fast enough or high enough to avoid other forms of AA or enemy planes. In those cases they are equally fucked.

Those 2 'advantages' the A-10 has over the Tucano mean nothing.

File: 451234123.jpg (75KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1200x800px

>>34006404
>What is Buk SAM.

>>34006404
In those cases the A-10 still comes out on top, if it the A-10 can still fly home with one engine, one wing and one pilot still alive. The best a Super Tucano can hope for is it to not to disintegrate on impact and limp on to find a place for a crash landing.

>>34006437
>what is EW
>what is SEAD

>>34005067
fuck you, yeh shot down my sides

>>33995960
>That cannon can still rip up IFV's and APC's
So can a 20mm canon on a Super Tucano.

>>33994994
>Military Intelligence
Sometimes a few smartasses do have something worth the Military's time to say. But this is more like the 2/10 chance odds here.

>>34006437
>What is Buk SAM.
Not a MANPAD? What is your point?

>>34006521
This isn't one of those times, Super Tucanos definitely cannot replace an A-10. It might be able to supplement what it does sometimes, but the USAF isn't going to fly them. They'll fly the superior Scorpion.

>>34006553
USAF fly Reaper already.

>>34005872
Sure, why not?
>you are now imagining a convoy of dune coons with AKs and world war era milsurp getting JDAM'd fifteen times by an A-1E Super Skyraider

>>33998784
>no question
You came to the wrong neighborhood

>>34006624
>You came to the wrong neighborhood
You're wrong and stupid.

>>33992098
But thirty Super Tucanos require 30 pilots

>>34007283
Just get infantry grunts to fly them.

>>33995830
We have drones for that, what's the fucking point. It can't do CAS.

>>34001446
this

>>34005020
What kind of syrian calendar with nineteen months're you usin', boy?

>>34009566
the superior non-American format is Date-Month-Year

>>34005043
I assumed 40mm grenades from a Mk 19, which weighs around 80 lbs unloaded. Add in ammunition, and you're easily over 100 lbs. Putting that kind of weight on a UAV is going to require a rather large platform. Top that off with the weight of camera systems, systems to remotely control the turret, plus weight of the engine and fuel and you're looking at a system that is too big for your average infantry platoon to tote around, and if you have a dedicated truck to carry it why not put the fucking Mk 19 on a Humvee? All together, you're looking at an overly complex, overly expensive weapons platform that is extremely vulnerable to small arms fire, and whose job is easily replaced by Humvee or a helicopter.

>>34010038
This thread has convinced me that anyone who wants the US to fly Super Tucanos are retarded.

>>34010156
Wtf does the post you replied to have to do with that?

Or are you saying that 40mm equipped manpack drones are feasible

>>34006160
Is it true that Kiowa pilots are crazy?

>>33992212
We used to have the Skyraider and A4 to fill in the gaps.

>>33992125

>They would be my #1 aircraft if I owned a mercenary company or 3rd world nation.
Funny you should mention it: http://warisboring.com/erik-princes-mercenaries-are-bombing-libya/

>>33992442
The A10s cost 12,000/hour because they are 35 year old air frames with a lot of hours under their belt.

When new, they required less maintenance, roughly equivalent to $4000/hour at current rates.

The Tucanos will age as well.

>>33992706
You watched pro wrestling before Dwayne Johnson became an actor.

>>34012572
$4000 an hour is still way higher than the Tucanos are new. Jet engines are expensive to maintain, even when the Tucanos age they aren't going to cost 12k/hr (though a Time article puts it at 17.7k/hr, either way)

>>34012572
>using figures for the A-10A
>thinks flight hour costs were only effected by aircraft age

>>33992098
>A-29 Super Tucano

Nice little bird.

The A-10 is a cold war bird that was conceived and built specifically to fuck up Soviet armor. Technology has changed since then, and there's probably better systems available to do that job now, and better systems to do CAS ops than the A-10.

Regardless, we don't really need a bird like that in our inventory as we already have systems that can perform any of the tasks the Tucano can already, be they fixed wing, or rotary wing.

>>33992149
>ww2 reject
>he doesn't understand light attack aircraft
Still wouldn't trust monkey quality control but this is a classic comment from CoD kids with no clue as to its application.

>>33992098
30x A-29 = > firepower than 1x A-10

File: 1487434762023.jpg (135KB, 720x666px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 720x666px

>>34005872
>>34006606

>>33992223
>200 stingers
>versus 1 A-10, with a human pilot
>or 20 drones

Either way you're fucked beyond comprehension, but one of those doesnt cost a human life

>inb4 edgy mcedgelord

>>33992098
>thirty A-29 Super Tucanos can be put into action.

The Textron Scorpion is better

Eh, i had plans to turn my turbo charged SF-260 into a CAS strike fighter but i don't know how

>>34015161
The A-10 is better than the Super Tucano

>>34015705
In what way? It's super expensive for a job multiroles and drones do just as well. Being "durable" is relative, and even A-10s can't stand serious defense systems even of the Vietnam era it was designed around. It can't be easily upgraded with modern targeting, and the gun is an anachronism.

>>34015705
30 Super Tucanos would beat an A-10 in a dogfight.

>>34015763
How does any of that make the Super Tucano better?

>>34015776
1 A-10 could destroy 30 Super Tucano on the ground, czechmate

>>34012978
The electronics upgrades actually reduced maintenance costs on introduction.

>>34015828
The point is that you don't need a slow, expensive plane like the A-10 to begin with. It does nothing drones, helos, and low-cost COIN planes can't do better, and it can't act fast or in contested/ADA-protected airspace as well as multi-roles.

>>34015828
1 Super Tucano could destroy every F-35 in the world on the ground.

>>34006097
>Can't disembowel a computer.

No, but you can hack them or fry them with EMPs.

>>34015862
So the point you made was irrelevant to the point that the A-10 is better than the Super Tucano?

>>34015882
but more countries want the F35 than the Super Tucano

>>34015889
>but more countries want the F35 than the Super Tucano
That's because Lockheed is better at political corruption than even the Brazilians.

>>34015901
That's because firepower > cost.

>>34015911
30 Super Tucanos have enough firepower to take over just about every single non-America first world nation.

>>34015919
30 Super Tucano couldn't sink a Russian carrier.

>>34015951
Why would you even need to? Just wait until it sinks itself.

>>34015973
1 half afloat Russian carrier > 30 Super Tucano, there you have it BR planes are worse than a Russian carrier.

>>34015987
>1 half afloat Russian carrier > 30 Super Tucano
You're delusional.

>>34015999
A Russian carrier can still sink a Russian carrier while the Super Tucano cannot.

>>34016013
A Russian carrier is not a legitimate military target on account of being a harmless piece of shit, so your argument is irrelevant.

>>34015889
>>34015828
The point is that the A-10 ISN'T better at anything relevant, but the Super Tucano is not only much cheaper but actually has a loiter time longer than 4 and half minutes.

>>34015951
Could an A-10?
If not then >>34015987 is true for the Warthog as well

If yes, then so can the Tucano because they literally carry the same munitions.

>>34015951
>>34015987
>>34016013
>>34016128

Clearly we need to put 30 Super Tucanos on a Russian carrier.

Special Tucano navalized when?

File: A-1J_Skyraider_VA-176_Vietnam_1966.jpg (444KB, 2134x1665px) Image search: [Google]

444KB, 2134x1665px

>>34016185
Skyraiders are already designed for naval ops and can carry torpedoes.

>>33992142
Because we have drones

A lot easier to train someone to basically play a video game from a shed in Nevada then actually put them in the air.

>>34016141
Being cheaper is only relevant for poor countries, that loiter time is irrelevant when it has to RTB because it doesn't even have half the payload of an A-10

>>34016155
An A-10 could because its got double the hard points, and more than triple the payload of a Super Tucano

>>34002230
Titanium bathtub/

>>34016259
> Being cheaper is only relevant for poor countries,
You're a fucking moron.
>An A-10 could because its got double the hard points, and more than triple the payload of a Super Tucano
>because it doesn't even have half the payload of an A-10

So fly 3 of them, it'll still cost less. And when one runs out of munitions, it can RTB without leaving infantry without CAS, like the A-10 does every 90 minutes.

>>34016321
>cheaper
>cheaper
Is that all the Super BR can hang its hat on, being cheaper? Why use 3 planes and put 6 pilot's lives in danger when you could just use one, unless you want to save money instead of lives.

>>34016355
Yes, cheaper is the entire point. Using a hue hue prop plane instead of a modern 4/5 gen multirole or an A-10 saves you a shitton of money, and saves wear hours on the fancier jets. As for "putting lives in danger", it's a COIN plane. It's not meant to be used over contested airspace. It loiters over the battlefield out of MANPADS range and drops JDAMs and Hellfires as needed. This is why we gave them to the Afghans, because it fits their use case.

>>33995804
oh my, that nose shape and tail is giving me the vapours.

>>34016373
Fits their case, but the USAF doesn't need the cheapest thing that can fly. When the A-10 is replaced its going to be the Scorpion.

>>33995804
They were actually tested and performed well in the middle east, so there's a chance.

>>34016355
Because the A-10 isn't any safer, and you risk the lives of those relying on the CAS its meant to be providing when its refueling.

Its not just about price - its about opportunity cost. As OP said, the cost per flight hour of 30 tucanos is the same as for 1 A-10.

A single A-10 can only be in one place at a time, it can only be doing one mission at a time and it's spending far more of its overall time not over the battlefield. 30 planes each with literally 5x the endurance means that firepower is on tap anywhere, when needed. No lulls for refueling, no waiting for RTBs after 10mins of combat (expected combat time of an A-10 in CAS role), send one back keep the other 29 on hand.

Even ignoring cost, 3 ST flying in place of a single A-10 is the better option. It literally does not matter that the A-10 can carry more - because the same type and number of PGMs will be in the sky and they'll be in the sky for longer. Available when needed.

>>34005020
>>34009831

Yurofags oin my /k/? Unfortunately, it's more likely than you think.

>>33995606
It's not exactly going to kill MBTs, but at the very least it'll damage them. Tracks and guns don't like fucktons of 120mm exploding in their face.

>>34006160
Sprey pls go, all you're doing is regurgitating shitty meme points

>>34006404
Not one of the people you're replying to but the big benefit of the A-10 is actually its gun. The gun isn't really meant for tanks, despite the memes about it. It was more meant for herds of BMPs and BTRs going through the fulda gap and using mavericks for tanks. However, it was later found out that it's fucking amazing for CAS in COIN type of ops. They use the gun when even little hellfires from helicopters have too much of a risk around it. For a non-precision weapon that is relatively cheap to shoot, the gun has a very very small danger close radius and they're being employed all the time for danger close. And if you are a Taliban fighter and hear that gun go off, it has such a reputation now that everyone just scatters and fucks off then reapers throw the hellfires at the people running away. Tucano will never have that reputation.

>>34017530
>10 Friendly Fire deaths over 4 incidents
>Next worst was 5 in one by the B-1b

It's pretty shit at CAS, too.

File: 2e1d18323894.jpg (57KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 720x540px

>>34017530
>The gun isn't really meant for tanks, despite the memes about it.
it was when new, but never let the facts get in the way of a good story

please an hero at your earliest convenience

picture unrelated to post content

>>34017551
It does way more CAS missions than a B-1 does and B-1 CAS is dropping a JDAM on people miles away. So of course it will have more friendly fire.
>>34017565
The gun struggles to penetrate tanks made in that same era.

>>33992832
>zerg your enemy to death in Cessna 172s with Hi-Points taped to the wings

Id watch this movie.

>>34017604
Vipers and Hornets do more CAS missions than the Hog, and B-1B services way more targets than the Hog does. Stop trying to pretend the A-10 isn't the worst troop killer.

>>34017632
It really isn't. And I doubt you have sources for anything you just claimed. Everyone in USAF knows A-10 is king of CAS with F-15E being a close second. Vipers try to get the number 2 spot sometimes but you just have way more SA with a two seat aircraft than single seat. It is a force multi-plier when you can have a low experience 1Lt pilot paired with a Major WSO with a few deployments under his belt conducting CAS.

>>34017792
>Everyone knows
Nope, right now its the B-1B. You're full of shit.

>>34017878
Coming from whom? Fly strike eagles right now an everyone in the community say A-10 is best for CAS, F-15E best for deep strikes but 2nd for CAS

File: planes.jpg (217KB, 912x763px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 912x763px

>>34012300
IT'S HAPPENING

>>33992098
Because an F-16 slinging PGMs won't get shot down by gunfire, while some of your super tacos will. And lost planes are more expensive than flight hours.

>>34018595
Aw shit nigga.

>mfw some guys on somethingawful are doing their own planes and mercs sorta thing
it's fucking brilliant