Why hasn't the A-10 been taken out of service?

Because it's fucking awesome?

File: very fast froggie moving at very hihg speeds.jpg (137KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 900x600px

Same reason why it's Russian cousin, the SU-25 hasn't. No matter how hard bleeding-edge futurists in both countries' governments & militaries have shilled for its retirement, both air forces have realized that they don't quite have anything close enough to replace it in that very particular ground attack role they both play, especially considering that the very situation that both planes excel could very conceivably arise in some future engagements.

File: IMG_0031.jpg (74KB, 550x1100px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 550x1100px

>>34412205
As a bleeding edge futurist, I see nothing wrong with this post.

>>34412205

America and Russia have very different military strategies.

The fact that the A-10 and Su-25 are still active together is coincidence, not indicative of some greater overall strategy.

Because it's sufficient for the job, dropping bombs on people who can't shoot back. Meanwhile military development mostly looks into fighting people who can shoot back, so the result isn't aircraft that do all that well at just being a flying U-haul.

>>34412134
While the F-35 is better suited for its original role as tank destroyer, the A-10 is more economic and less overkill for low intensity COIN operations.

>>34413192
>You

Ground attack is ground attack you ho ass nigga. Doctrinal discrepancies mean little for CAS vehicles, especially when both have seen deployment in multiple operations.

File: SU25.jpg (191KB, 900x846px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 900x846px

>>34412205

>>34412134
Because it's effective in its role and has a lot of fanboys clamoring to keep it.

Because brrrrrrrrrt

because the Apache and F-35 are bad at CSAR

>>34412134
Because there is nothing else that can do its role. Design an A-11/A-12 and we'll be talking.

>>34412134
Because you always use the closest shoe to squash cockroaches.

Because the people it's being used against don't have any kind of AA weaponry.

File: BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.jpg (216KB, 960x462px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 960x462px

>>34412134
Because congress if full of morons who fell for the BRRRRRT meme, and they have the power to veto the people who know what they're talking about..

Because it's a perfectly good plane for shredding ragheads, which is 90% of conflicts these days, and its cheaper than any fancier alternative

>>34414469
>(((people))) who know what they're talking about..
>"Oh I assure you the A-10 is obsolete, you must purchase our new F-6000000, only 6 trillion dollars!"
|
|>
|3
|

>>34412205
>they don't quite have anything close enough to replace it in that very particular ground attack role they both play, especially considering that the very situation that both planes excel could very conceivably arise in some future engagements.

The A-10 and Su-25 excel at being cheap and existing. They would be and have been absolute cannon fodder to any kind of AA capability, even down to MANPADs. Drones do their job better.

The A-10 is still one of the most reliable planes out there

File: Blueprint-A-10-16x20-SP00605-vintage-military-aviation-travel-poster-art-print-gift.jpg (158KB, 600x750px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 600x750px

A-10 really isnt cheap either. The whole plane is built around the gun hence the phrase "look at the plane on that gun" instead of "look at the gun on that plane"

>>34413381
>the A-10 is more economic
How is it more economic to have multiple, high maintenance assets over a single one?

>>34414594
If they wanted to make the A-10 better they should remove that useless fucking gun.

>>34414575
Its availability rate is actually below average, memester.

Practicality.

it works

File: 1466826931204.jpg (58KB, 1030x500px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 1030x500px

because missiles are too expensive to use on migrant boats, what you think they're going to just stop coming?

>>34415059
Practically speaking, its been obsolete for decades.

>>34412134
Congressional interference in Air Force equipment status based on complete bullshit on how "effective" it is(n't).

>>34412205
Bullshit, it does nothing everything else doesn't do as well or better.

>>34415402
Not for COIN, which is what most militaries spend most of their time on.

>>34415406
You don't build or maintain capability for COIN, but if you wanted to there are platforms that do its job better while also filling niches in actual combat rather than dicking around in sandboxes.

>>34415417
A super tucano or a bronco would be better.

>>34414149
The B1, F-15E, F-16, F/A-18s, Cobras, Apaches, and Predators/Reapers all do the same job great, and so will the F-35.

Get your head out your ass, the A-10 does nothing special.

>>34414487
>Cheaper
Bullshit.

>>34414496
>Literally in such bad shape they had to do a super expensive wing repair program that'll be good for maybe five years
>HURR IZ BEDDERR DURR

>>34414149
The F/A-16 should have replaced that shitbox.

>>34414612
Sooo, the F-35 then?

>>34415419
They're just as big of a meme.

>>34415394
>Murdering civilians

>>34415449
Sure, I don't care. I just hate that fucking gun and it infuriates me that people think that's the A-10's best asset. It's a fucking missile truck like every other aircraft in current inventory.

>>34415459
Yeah, but they'll have lower costs per hour. Jet fuel is expensive.

File: 1474729947407.jpg (82KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 960x720px

>>34415460
>civilians
soros pls go

>>34415459
At least they're a lot less expensive than an A-10 if you have to have a COIN focused plane.

>>34415477
>Implying any of the attacks were by refugees
>hurr muh Soros boogieman

>>34415489
>if you have to have a COIN focused plane.
You don't, thats the entire point.

We've got drones that can stay on station for up to 35 godamn hours with exactly the same capability in targeting and dropping PGMs.

>>34415521
And I'm not making the point that we would need such a plane, just that in comparison the A-10 is the worst choice.

File: F-35C Lightning II carrier variant, into a 45-degree dive during an external GBU-12 weapons separation test..jpg (3MB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3600x2400px

It won't be around much longer

>>34416325
>fuck you, here bomb

>>34412134

Because when it comes to putting the Army and Marines in their place, no one does it better than the A-10!

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/02/05/a-10-john-mccain-iraq-afghanistan/22931683/

>>34412134

It is not out of service, it is out of production.

I don't know why they decided to take it out of production. Seems like it was a shit idea now that they are scrambling with the OA-X trials to get its replacement.

>>34416432
Are you really that retarded? It hit target unit numbers, production ended, then the manufacturer collapsed. There will never be new A-10s again, and good riddance.

>>34416325
>F-35 replacing A-10

Americans are a funny bunch

>>34416450

> you know what? Don't close that factor. this is an alright airplane, we'll buy a couple more.

that's all they had to say

>>34416468
40 years ago? To a company that no longer exists?

Okay, I just found out that fairchild-republic's assets were bought out by an Israeli company.

This is why no-one will scrap the A-10.

>>34416468
>Plane they knew would be burned away in a major Soviet attack within 2 weeks
>Alright
>>34416467
You could've just said "I'm retarded" and been less stupid.

>>34416560
Elbit has nothing to do with the A-10, dipshit.

>>34415394
Like that's ever going to happen.

>>34416560
The A-10 hasn't been scrapped due to political reasons, not because its actually needed.

The gun was a fucking retarded concept to begin with even back in the 70s, and to this day it serves as useless dead weight on the plane. The US would've been better off with a SU-25 copy not even vatnikking

>>34414496
The F-35 is being purchased either way you retard. The difference is we're keeping another line of aircraft active regardless

The gun on the A-10 probably want for anything but killing BTRs and BMPs desu

Yah it's dumb against MBTs but it was realistically proposed as an anti-mechanization aircraft not a TONK BUSTR

>>34416855
And even then, it was assumed the entire fleet would be gone in two weeks.

File: 1408830984925.jpg (124KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 500x600px

>>34416640
well not with that attitude senpai

>>34416855
It gets kinda spooky when every gun on the ground larger than a makarov and smaller than 125mm tank gun are firing at you

What about the OA-X program to replace it?

File: YA-9.jpg (664KB, 2560x1707px) Image search: [Google]

664KB, 2560x1707px

>>34416764

>Implying that the SU-25 isn't a copy of the YA-9 that lost out for the CAS role.

>>34417013
>implications

>>34413381
The F-35 is NOT "better suited".
A-10 is less delicate, has better loiter time, better visibility, more redundancy, and can take some shots.
A-10 specializes, F-35 generalizes.

>>34412134
Because it does great in modern warfare. Fighting armored but aa lacking sand people.

>>34415521
And drones can be hacked and/ or jammed.

>>34416325
How much does an A-10 carry?
How much does a F-35 carry?

>>34416567
How many times have we fought the Soviets?
We need to be prepared for lower intensity conflicts, too, because we keep getting invloved in them for 200+ years.

>>34416764
>>34416764
>>34416764


You're absolutely incorrect.

You don't know how much of a morale booster it is to hear it. You just don't understand at all. As far as the actual capabilities of the weapon system I can attest it is lethal and will literally tear you to fucking pieces.

>>34412192
underrated post

>>34417321
>less delicate
We spend a shitload of money just to keep the planes from falling apart every few years, not to mention constantly upgrading avionics and weapons systems. But sure, it's less "delicate" because it looks all big and burly, right?

>can take some shots
Who cares about that if you can just move fast enough to not get hit? The Hog is just a magnet for SAMs anyway.

If they replaced the A10 with broncos for COIN and light CAS, and the F35 for attacking hard targets, that might work.

>>34415422
a B1 bomber, an F-15, an F-16, an F/A-18, two helicopters, the F-35 and UAVs all do the same role?

Well shit why do we have any of them then our entire air force should be one plane since they all do the same thing!

You're a moron.

A-10 has more hardpoints than any UAV, a higher top speed, a great payload capacity, and a cannon.

A-10 when compared to attack heli still gets more weaponry, a higher top speed for greater survivability against SAMs and MANPADs, etc.

A-10 when compared to a B1 is just, what the fuck are you even talking about.

A-10 compared to any fast jet has an advantage in low speed maneuverability, low speed target engagement, and it has a higher loiter time on target.

The A-10s downsides are: slow top speed so longer to reach battle zone and low speed making it more susceptible to ground fire and enemy fighters than fast movers.

The A-10 serves a purpose and in situations like we face today, where we own the airspace, the A-10 is great.

>>34416325
>It won't be around much longer
We know the F-35 will need replacing with a competent aircraft, but we're talking about A-10s now.

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

331KB, 595x1382px

>>34417543
>A-10 when compared to a B1 is just, what the fuck are you even talking about.

and here is where you went complete retard

>>34417543
>slow top speed so longer to reach battle zone
We could use a B1 to drop it over the battle zone.

>>34417581

Yep, you can stuff it full of 500lb JDAMS and hang out dropping them all day.

>>34417359

A-10 16,000lbs of bombs and missiles although realistically this will be less due to one pylon being used for a targeting pod.

F-35A 18,000lbs of ordnance and this will most likely be higher in the future when more space is freed up in the weapons bays.

>>34417345
Reapers are operating just fine in Syria.

DESU all the other super powers like to LARP that their will be another war but warfare is gonna be us bombing sandnigger for a long as time, and you dont need a 5th gen to do that

Also the A10 is porn

>>34417581
Your own pie chart shows that, throughout all of those engagements and time periods, overall, the A-10 was used more than the B-1.

Yes, the B-1 can drop in support of CAS. Great.

But comparing a B-1 to an A-10 is pretty stupid. One is a Super Sonic Long Range Bomber, the other is a flying tank.

I wouldn't compare the B-1 to any of the other aircraft in the original post. I mean if we're going to talk about anything that has ever been used to kill an enemy close to friendlies, let's talk about the F-35 vs I don't know, a giant piece of artillery or a Tomahawk cruise missile.

>>34417379
And the F-35 is better at that than the A-10 as well.

>>34417390

>As far as the actual capabilities of the weapon system I can attest it is lethal and will literally tear you to fucking pieces.

A bomb will also tear you to pieces. This isn't special.

>>34417554
^This is the example of a completely stupid A-10 fan boy.

it just works, and prevents flights hours from building up on our expensive wunderwaffen.

>>34417636
Don't forget that the A-10 needs drop tanks, so that's 3-5 of the 11 points eaten up.

>>34417709
>Also the A10 is porn
Gay gangbang porn.

>>34417715
>Flying tank
Which hurts it's ability to be effective at A2G because it's a fucking WWII-grade design.

>>34412134
It's good at what it does, simple as that. Sure tech has moved on, but given that we haven't fought an enemy with anything close to our air combat capability in a very long time it doesn't really matter. Also, BRRRRT..... Which is to say that 30mm autocannon is an effective weapon against almost anything.

>>34412134
>Taking the big dick girl from the skies.
Never gonna happen unless they make a new version with rail guns and sheeit.

>>34413425
It's for completely different reasons. The Su-25 is in service for the same reason the Mig-21 is, the Slavs never retire anything. The A-10 is still in service because Congressmen have read on the internet that it is awesome and won't let the Air Force retire it and just let F-16's do the job. If there is one thing the Air Force has no lack of it is CAS.

File: airborne suppository.jpg (2MB, 2100x1430px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1430px

>>34417743

They ran it for 35 years with no drop tanks, the centerline tank was only certified to bring into combat a few year ago.

>>34417787
It's inevitable and there will be no direct replacement.

>>34412134
Honestly because of this >>34412192.
It's a huge moral booster and since our current enemies have piss poor AA might as well use what will kill okay, and run moral through the roof.

>>34418636
>Keeping what gives people hard peepees instead of retiring it before it's completely fucked up and killing pilots

>>34417543

are you really comparing A-10 loiter and exposure to ground fire vs a F-15E? what tactical advantage do you have in going slow? i guarantee a F-15E WSO can go through a 9-line just as fast as a Hawg driver, with better survivability. the only difference is a F-15E's strafe doesn't do much, which doesn't matter much when you carry 19 bombs in a standard 2-ship and can dial the lethality all the way up or down. i've spoken to JTACs who usually control Hawgs and they have no idea what to do with GBU-31s or SDBs and the capabilities they can bring to the fight, which just makes me sad.

>>34416855
That's not correct. It was intended to kill T-62s...from the right angles. Obsolete upon release, what a shitbox.

>>34417321
>has better loiter time
I never understand the use for this. You get on station, drop ordnance, go home. Why do you need to fly around doing fuck all?

>>34417771
>Which is to say that 30mm autocannon is an effective weapon against almost anything.
Except against the targets it was intended for.

>>34418958

because sometimes a CAS situation takes time to develop.

other times you get a 9-line that won't be dropped on until 2 hours later when you get to the AO.

>>34417919
It needs tanks to have loiter and range comparable to an f35, and it needs targeting pods to be useful at all. It's also slower, less networked, and has far worse air to ground sensors even with pods.

>>34418958
What's really fucky about it is that the F-35's internal fuel and far greater speed means it can both loiter a lot longer and cover a much larger service area than an A-10.

>>34418720
A-10 wankers always seem to completely forget about the Strike Eagle, even though it can carry the most weapons out of any jet in the Air Force, and it can hang around forever with its gas tanks.

The Hog might be the dick-waving "morale booster", but the Mudhen is the one who does all the work.

>>34419187
They also love to ignore that the F-35 is only beat by the F-15E in range and payload in the same environments the A-10 can fly. Plus it can fly F-117 missions with far less planning.

>>34415460
"Civilians" implies they're citizens of some country. Can't be a citizen to a country that no longer exists.

>>34419250
>Implying that renders non-military personnel non-human
Fucking neverserved dickbags promoting crimes.

File: Lockheed A-12.jpg (172KB, 1280x950px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1280x950px

>>34414149
I don't think the A-12 is a very good replacement for the A-10.

>>34415460
>>34419250
Your "Laws of War" are nothing but toothless suggestions and lies told to the helpless to make them feel better. They didn't save the Red Cross from being bombed by the US, they didn't save Rwanda, they didn't save refugees from being sunken by a Yemenese helicopter, and the only time they were even close to being enforced in recent history was when Trump sent tomahawks into Syria in reprise for gassing civilians, with the end result being some broken fighters and none of the actual perpetrators being punished.

When the UN starts marching into warzones to arrest those responsible for breaking their laws and tries them in international court, including individuals from its member countries AND non-state actors, you will have a point. But for now all they give is a false sense of security to the people they allege to protect.

>>34419314
well played, anon

Congress.

File: cranked arrow.png (1MB, 920x676px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 920x676px

>>34415438
>tfw could have had cranked arrow...

>>34412192
>>34417440
>summer reddit

>>34417717
>t. lockmart shill

>>34419250
1. No, civilians implies non-military personnel, you moron. You remain a civilian even if you don't have a nationality.

2. A failed state still exists.

3. You're welcome to go back to pol

>>34412134

>B-but it's obsol-
BBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTT

>B-but it would be chea-
BBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTT

>B-but anon you're using awesomeness to counter rarional thinking even if there is no other aircraft capable of exercising the A10's capabilities with the same effici-
BBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTT

So ye that's handy as fuck

>>34420623
>hurr shill durr

>>34420770
Go stick your dick in the long-obsolete GAU-8 already.

>>34420832
Gladly gau-chan

>>34420832
>Obsolete
It still puts holes in people, yeah? And it puts them in faster than other weapons of an equivalent caliber? Seems like it does the job better than non-automatic 30mms.

>>34421295
The problem is that the attack vector itself is obsolete.

>>34420827
>shilling this hard

>>34421396
>I have no actual counterpoints so I'm just going to call him a shill instead of learning durr

>>34412134
what is the turn rate of the A10? also the thrust to weight ratio; how does it compare to gen IV/V/VI aircraft?

>>34421948
It is a slightly faster WW2 fighter plane that can carry a lot more.

>>34421982
how would it compare to the SU-27 or F-15?

Retiring the Bronco was a mistake. We don't need to do it again.

>>34422003

It would easily turn inside them but it would still die. It just doesn't have a good vertical compared to a F-15 or some monster like that. Superior energy management wins a dogfight, and the A-10s envelope is just too small compared to F-15/F-22 etc. And that is ignoring all the BVR missiles. I am just talking about a straight up furball. It's not a good dogfighter against a competitent pilot in a modern, dedicated AtA plane.

File: a10.jpg (51KB, 1000x318px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 1000x318px

I would very much love to see an F35 make it back to base with this much damage done to it.

Not only does the A-10 offer superior CAS for boots on the ground, the 30mm canon is not only devastating firepower against ANYTHING.. It is absolutely demoralizing. Kind of like an MG42 was in WWII

>>34422163
>It is absolutely demoralizing.
Yes, this. I have seen videos of A-10s clearing 100 yards of treeline with their cannon in just two seconds, or groups of people on motorcycles. Try that with anything else now that cluster bombs are no longer permissible.

>>34422186

air burst GBU-31v1. fuck you and all your friends within 500-ish meters.

>muh cannon!
worse than PGMs. more expensive, less accurate, less effective.
>muh CAS!
mission, not a role, and not one that the A-10 is even good at, using modern munitions.
>muh COIN!
the A-10 is not a COIN aircraft, it is far more expensive and maintenance heavy than any COIN aircraft, for pretty much no increase in COIN capabilites.
>muh armor!
the actual threat to modern aircraft, SAMs, do not give two shits about some shitty armor. modern aircraft are not engaged by AAA. furthermore, the A-10's shitty speed and handling capabilities make it far more vulnerable to SAM attack than any multirole fighter in service.

In conclusion, the A-10 is an aircraft that has been outdated since inception, that does not do any mission it can perform particularly well. The Air Force has tried to retire it many times, for good reason, and has been held back by crusty Congressmen like John McCain. Did I miss anything? Not sure why I bothered to bump this shitty thread.

File: thinking girl.jpg (26KB, 332x515px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 332x515px

>be grunt
>run into anything offering as much as slight resistance
>call an airstrike because that's clearly a cost effective method of dealing with sand people
>have to wait 8 minutes for an A10 or 5 minutes for an F35
gee whiz, what a difficult choice
really makes me think :^)

>>34422163
This raises an interesting question about the F-35; given how its constructed with a stealthy, smooth coat in mind, how difficult would it be to repair one in the case they were shot up with missing wing tips and damaged engines while still keeping the stealth aspect relevant? Wouldn't they get less stealthy from age and continuous patching up?

>>34422852
what situation is it going to be shot up in? not a whole lot of planes surviving missile hits.

>>34422592
Considering that almost everyone in the game of rattling sabers at us is still using rusty old Soviet-era tanks that the A-10 was designed to obliterate, and that we'd gain complete and total air superiority in a matter of hours against any of the tin pot dictators that run those countries, the A-10 is still an entirely relevant platform, doubly so considering that it still does that particular job cheaper and better than the F35, F16, or anything else out there.

Does the A10 matter in a hypothetical war with Russia or China or any other country fielding modern SAMs, armor, and an actual capability to dig in and fight us? No, of course not.
Does it matter in a war in North Korea or Iran, where it'd be a matter of shooting their tanks as fast as we can find them?
Yes, absolutely.

>>34422866
>gun still relevant
The T-72M is not exactly state of the art technology. Even crackpot ME dictators, the Chinese, and the Norks are all doing far better than that, let alone the shitty T-62s that the 30mm APDS can penetrate. it is irrelevant, there are tons of more effective weapons in US inventory.
>cheaper and better
Certainly not better, and less cheap all the time. A tin pot dictator can also field fucking MANPADS, which are a credible threat to the slow, shitty A-10.

>>34421295
>It still puts holes in people, yeah?
The fuck do you need a 30mm cannon to put holes in people for?
>And it puts them in faster than other weapons of an equivalent caliber?
So what?

>>34422163
>the 30mm canon is not only devastating firepower against ANYTHING
Once again, not against what it was designed to be used for.

>>34422866
>Iran
Nigga are you dumb?

>>34422942
Nigga, are you?

Is this some sort of mirror universe thread? I disappear for a bit and world is on it's ear.
Last I was aware, Washington kept trying to force the A-10 out but folks in the Air Force were banding together to tell them to fuck off.
Congress only cares about things they can make money off, they were trying to tell them to cancel when the JSF was still floundering about because they were cucks for the contractors trying to push the damn thing.

I'm guessing that in this universe the F-35 did not have a stoppage on new orders because of it being an expensive hanger queen that cost so much to maintain you could buy a new one with the repair budget for five missions?

>>34422966
You must be. Iran would quickly blow the A-10s out of the sky.

>>34423000
The only thing Norks or Iran would have are MANPADS after we SEAD them.

>>34415460
>thinking we don't

>>34422991
>folks in the Air Force
Incorrect, it's the folks in Congress who have been doing it for 30 years. As an additional point, the people who fly and work on A-10s obviously wouldn't want them retired.

Drones aren't efficient in air to ground support like the A-10. It has a range of uses unlike drones which focus on taking out anti infantry equipment.

>>34412134
To answer OP's question.
Because it has been repurposed from "expendable CAS aircraft" to "undeadable COIN aircraft"

In its original role as CAS the gun was intended to mission kill but not hard kill t-54 and T-62 tanks in the fulda gap.
It "survivability" is based on the idea the Soveits would be in a win or Die charge and all aircraft would need to keep flying several missions with unrepaired damage.
This was in the days when Short range SAMs had a minimum altitude and below that AS A gun was the only real option, that is why the Bathtub was designed to take 23mm shilka hits.
The Russians then switched to 30mm gunnery and invalidated the A-10 against AA.

In COIN work you are only expecting rifle and HMG fire with the occasional outdated Soviet AS. the A-10 is hyper expensive compared to any other COIN craft but they never have to deal with the bad press of losing a pilot.
That is the real reason politicians VETO replacing the A-10

>>34423000
Wasted trip

>>34423010
>the only thing left after the F-35s do all the heavy lifting is weapon systems that will be effective against A-10s doing gun runs and nothing else
>this is supposed to be an argument supporting the A-10 and the GAU-8
Come on now.

>>34423053
Don't even bother replying to him

>>34423041
>The A-10 is a flying tank!!11 meme

Fuck off.

>>34423154
What are you babbling about? At what point did I say flying tank?
Try reading what was actually said you cretin

>>34415513
>>34419271
>>34420738
>implying a single subhuman invader should be allowed in human civilizations

>>34420619
Underrated post

>>34422866

in both a North Korea and Iran scenario, the A-10 fleet gets wiped out by MANPADS/AAA after they fence in. this is straight from an A-10 Weapons School grad (plus common sense).

>>34415513
Most of them were by the children of refugees.

File: Know the difference.jpg (108KB, 980x552px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 980x552px

>>34415460
Sorry anon - pic related kills civvies.

A10s kill aggressive sand people.

>>34418698
Do you even
>BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTT
anon?

>>34423168
>"undeadable COIN aircraft"
>undeadable>

>>34412134
It's good at taking out lightly armored targets for a relatively low price.

>>34422163

Most airplanes with 2 engines can survive one exploding

>>34419050

The A-10C can mount modern targeting pods and smart munitions, and is pretty well networked at this point. It still doesn't have a radar though of course.

>>34422056
The power to weight ratio isn't there and the A-10 can only manage one or two good turns before it's out of airspeed. They do carry a couple of sidewinders in case someone gets cocky. Engaging one in a turning fight would be stupid anyway though, a faster fighter can just boom and zoom, practically treating it like a stationary target.

>>34415438
I personally work on the broken ass f16 the A 10 has an incredible payload. Low slow and kill everything below and by the way brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!

>>34423333
>implying the "subhuman" category exists in the //current year//

>>34422852
It's designed so whole components just get swapped out, so it'd have very little long-term effect.

>>34412134
Because doing so would kill jobs in several important congressional districts.

File: IMG_4752.jpg (83KB, 478x357px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 478x357px

Biggest argument in favor of the A-10 over the F-35 at the moment is that we actually have enough of them to be useful.

>>34415449
Nah, more like the Textron Scorpion. Buy that thing and more drones and it'll do the low part of the high-low mix with the F-35 better and cheaper than the A-10.

>>34417345
And manned planes can be spoofed with decoys or made entirely useless with smokescreens. Both of which are a hell of a lot easier and require less specialist equipment and knowledge than hacking a drone.

>>34417321
>less delicate

AHAHAHAHA, they're fucking falling apart.

>better visibility

Utterly false. Even with a sensor pod (which are by now mandatory for it), the A-10 still doesn't match the F-35 for sensory systems - systems which outperform the human eye so hard it's not even funny. A F-35 flying along at 30,000 feet can see things on the ground better than a pilot trying to eyeball it from 300 feet.

>more redundancy

Not really.

>can take some shots

Which is not nearly enough to make up for it being several orders of magnitude easier to hit in the first place.

>>34422674
>the f-35 strike gets delayed by 2 days

>>34424850
>memes

>>34417676
Yeah. Syria. World leaders in EW.

>>34419167
At what altitude?
I swear, I have never seen a weapons system with such oversensitive defenders as the F-35 since, well, the F-111.

File: IMG_4791.jpg (50KB, 800x517px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 800x517px

>>34412205
Then why does france not use the mirage f1 anymore

>>34425013

At the end of the day, the Air Force's number 1 job (other than strategic deterrence) is always to maintain air superiority over any potential adversary, and the A-10 doesn't really have any relevance to that role, or to strategic deterrence. It doesn't help that it was designed in the 1970's. Let it go. It had a good run.

>>34424682
This desu senpai, until F-35 hits FOC, all the airframes it's replacing will have some value in deployed numbers. That said, the money spent supplying and maintaining A-10s would probably still be better spent training F-35 suppliers/crew to shorten the time til FOC or on more relevant F-16/18/15Es.

Hey all, I posted a thread related to this here >>34425079

Does anyone know the ratio between close air support and infantry/armor?

>>34425110

I don't understand the question. What ratio?

>>34418958
>Why do you need to fly around doing fuck all?
CAS is about ground troops. They want you around. And then some.

Here's the real reason.
I live in Tucson. This is my rep.
I could have used the picture of Giffords, or McCain, or whatever.
We have an airbase here that has A10's and C130 variants. Its economically important to Tucson that we have this airbase.
It hasn't been assigned replacement aircraft, like the F35. Until it is, politics will keep the A10 alive. We'll be doing Protoss vs Zerg and you'll be able to spawn A10's for gun runs until they send a new airframe to Tucson.

File: A10 Thunderbolt II GAU cannon.jpg (451KB, 2000x1303px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 2000x1303px

>>34412134
The U.S. Military currently faces a number of low intensity conflicts where the A-10 is quite useful. Its a proven a capable asset which can free up other assets to deter high intensity conflicts in other parts of the word.

Plus we just put new wings on them, so we may as well get our money's worth. Plus the A-10 has significant battlefield morale effects that other platforms lack.

File: images.jpg (9KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 225x225px

>>34425140
Shit, forgot to attach pic...

>>34424162
Undeadable COIN aircraft you retard.
Compare the A-10 to any COIN aircraft, we're talking shit that's basically repurposed crop dusters , yes compared to the it is undeadable IN A MOTHERFUCKING COUNTER INSURGENCY ROLE
In the same way An M1 would be an Undeadable riot suppression vehicle

Note the entire fucking paragraph listing it's vulnerability and outdated protection and design when used in a CAS role

File: download.jpg (5KB, 146x186px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 146x186px

>>34425210
and him

File: download-1.jpg (5KB, 148x186px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 148x186px

and her, before mcsally...

>>34425130

So dropping bombs on the enemy isn't enough, the plane must also play the role of babysitter for infantry?

>>34422592
But the F-35 is $67k/ hr to operate, the A-10 is $12k/ hr.

>>34425218
McCain has a LOT of sway with Military affairs & spending - especially with the Rs in control of the Senate.

>>34425140
Do you happen to know a guy by the last name Otto? 24 yrs old, white about 6'2?

>>34417748
Sounds hot.

>>34425237
I'm not sure if this is some kind of memery, but nope.

>>34417581
those charts don't tell me how many of each aircraft were available in theater. if there were 2 or 3 times as amany F16s as A10s, of course they would have more sorties.

>>34424710
Decoys and smokescreens? Are you suggesting a drone would be less affected by those than a pilot?

>>34424726
>falling apart
Uh huh
>sensory systems/ 30.000 ft
You are full of shit and probably know you are lying.
>easier to hit
the shills are amusing; sometimes AAA is a threat and sometimes only missiles are relevant.

>>34412134
institutional inertia

>>34423937
No, the A-10 kills soldiers, especially British ones

>>34425309
>You are full of shit and probably know you are lying
Okay, please explain why an A-10 would have better visibility than an F-35.

>>34425309
modern aircraft do not go low or slow to perform any air to ground mission. there is no threat to modern aircraft from AAA unless you are doing some 1960s gun run shit.

>>34418720
>A-10 loiter and exposure to ground fire vs a F-15E? what tactical advantage do you have in going slow
A-10 is only really used in arenas where AA and ground fire are minimal. Without dedicated AA, sand people aren't going to be knocking A-10s out of the sky. If MANPADs or AA is a real concern, then the A-10 usually isn't there.

The A-10 fits a certain role and does it well. The A-10 can loiter slow and low giving it an advantage in responding quickly and accurately against ground targets. I think once both are on station the A-10 has a better and more effective immediate response.

Check the A10 in Iraq, it has tons of kills against tanks, APCs, vehicles, radar stations, etc. It's not a bad platform.

When you control the air, it's a nice thing to have.

>>34415394
The bullets for the gun cost about as much as the missiles

>>34418720
Also in terms of survivability, in the Gulf they lost 6 A-10s, one of which flew back to base damaged. The other 5, all pilots survived the initial damage, with one being killed later on the ground.

Same period, lost something like 3 F-16s and 2 F-15s, and 2 F/A-18s, with several pilot deaths.

The A-10's problem is that it is hopelessly vulnerable to modern air defense forces, which makes that titanium bathtub dead weight which could otherwise be used to improve payload capacity in either weapons or fuel. As a result it tend to be pretty inefficient compared to either larger aircraft or more modern tactical aircraft.

>>34425229
Well, yes.

File: 183741-004-90627610.jpg (124KB, 480x460px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 480x460px

>>34424981
Theres this country, you may have heard of it. Bragging a lot about how its jamming the entire Syrian airspace.

>>34425073

Maybe. Until we are out of the business of dropping ordnance on sand people who can't really shoot back there will always be a place for a cheap and simple airplane to get the job done.

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

44KB, 673x411px

>>34425215
>Calling anyone a retard when you can't even proofread your sentences and use "undeadable" in the first place

FYI, COIN doesn't mean "no AA".

>>34414612
no. see my next response as to why.
>>34412134
EXACTO derivative technology is incoming.
>>34412258
This will make you happy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoOaJclkSZg
https://youtu.be/XW2DwQun95s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EXACTO

Long story short, you will not see anything new about this for a while, but its just like the MKV, which vanished for the better part of a decade and some change before resurfacing under MKV-L and MKV-R

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LC97wdQOmfI
https://youtu.be/KBMU6l6GsdM

>>34425522

Why? Soldiers should be trained to fight on their own without being dependent on air cover. You can't expect that Air Force to do all the work.

>>34425557
Phone autocorrections, deal with it asshat.

As for what you posted, you are being deliberately obtuse.
When compared to other COIN aircraft, shit like Super Tucs are you really going to pretend the A-10 is not 1000 times more survivable which directly translates to a significant reduction in pilot risk which politicians like to avoid due to bad press

And yes COIN generally does mean no dedicated AA hence why COIN missions specifically reference supporting low intensity engagements.

>>34425705
I don't understand combined arm theory - the post.

You use whatever asset the enemy is least equipped to deal with.
For the majority of missions this translates to aircraft being the warhorse carrying the rest of the armed forces

>>34412192
/thread

>>34425765

>aircraft being the warhorse carrying the rest of the armed forces

And they do this primarily by carrying out air interdiction missions against enemy forces. The tactical arm of the air force has three core missions: air superior, interdiction, and close air support. CAS is the least important of the three, and budgetary decisions must reflect this. The Army has helicopters, they can take care of themselves.

>>34425441
Drones and dedicated COIN aircraft do that job better now and the A-10 is no longer cheap to maintain.

>>34425130
>They want you around
To do what? Stores are empty.

>>34425875

>A-10 is no longer cheap to maintain.

Compared to the F-35? Yeah it is.

>>34425810
Helos have shorter ranges, and drastically shorter loiter times than actual planes.
Having the capacity to cover themselves does not translate to the being the most effective

>>34425741
>Phone autocorrections
lmao from what?

A-10s are not more survivable. They'll eat a tiny MANPAD and die like a bitch just like everything else thats slow, fat and obsolete.

>>34425905
>CAS dumps all ordinance as soon as they are on station.
No.

>>34425954

A-10's are much, much more survivable against small missiles than a single-engine prop-plane would be.

>>34425954
Then I'm sure you can point to any A-10 having been downed by MANPADS.
Oh wait, that hasn't happened, the smallest SAM to down an A-10 is a Gaskin

>/k/ still thinking CAS is best done low and slow

The B-1B is the most effective CAS aircraft is the US arsenal, with better payload, loiter time, survivability, and faster response than the A-10.

>>34426009

Yeah, but an A-10 is going to have a much higher rate of availability and lower overall cost.

>>34425963
The fuck are you going to sit around for hours for when you could not?

>>34425988
>Oh wait, that hasn't happened
It didn't happen during the Gulf War? okay

>>34425988
A-10A Thunderbolt II (Serial Number : 80-0248)
Shot down by an SA-16 (Igla)

A piddly little MANPAD with a 1.2kg warhead.

>>34426104

The number of A-10's shot down by MANPADS is identical to the number of F-16's shot down by MANPADS.

>>34426044
Because that is the purpose of CAS loitering?
You are used as support for when the ground forces have a specific target blocking their mission, as they advance another threat may become more pressing

>>34426121
too bad the A-10's loiter time is surprisingly mediocre

>>34426119
>The number of A-10's shot down by MANPADS is identical to the number of F-16's shot down by MANPADS.

and there are 4 times as many F-16s doing higher risk missions.

>>34426133
It is mediocre, unless you are comparing it to Helo loiter times like the last guy was proposing

>>34426136
This. During the Gulf War, the Air Force specifically kept the A-10 out of the hottest areas and only sent in strike fighter. Because even 25 years ago we knew the A-10 had shit survivability against modern anti-air weapons.

>>34426136
Doing CAS missions, where I already said it was outdated.
Not COIN

>>34426136

It used to be understood that the air force needed a hi-lo mix of assets to deal with different situations. You can't have super-expensive stealth fighters and nothing else.

>>34426163
Okay but the talk was A-10 survivability. It isn't survivable. So stop talking like it is.

It'll eat a MANPAD and die.

>>34425875
If you read elsewhere in the thread I explain why the A-10 is superior to the drone in a lot of ways.

>>34426172
This niche is now happily filled by MQ-9s and its successors.

>>34426133
>>34426152
Only mediocre if you include refueling for other aircraft. It can loiter longer than fast movers.

>>34426163
okay, so it's just overbuilt, inefficient, and expensive to operate for COIN

>>34424726
Plus the F-35's systems are actively IDing everything they can spot. I think it can even use the EOTS to augment vision if the pilot isn't actively using it.

>>34425059
And interdiction is always preferable to all services over CAS.

Actively preventing assets from reaching the front is always better than reacting to them in contact.

>>34426177
It is survivable, compared to any other COIN aircraft.
That is the point that you are intentionally ignoring,
The statement is directly relating to being hugely overspec for COIN operations and if you can close down Autism.exe for a few seconds you would have seen it was in air quotes to begin with.

File: IMG_0715.jpg (92KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 1280x720px

Scorpion when?

>>34426198
Correct, which was the point I was making in the 1st post that you failed to read properly.

>>34426248
Either the COIN mission has no AA assets, and everything would be survivable regardless of what it is

or the mission has AA involved and the A-10 is just as fucking dead as anything slow and low enough to eat basic AA like MANPADs.

ergo its obsolete for its role; it brings no advantages.

>>34425909
>Compared to the F-35? Yeah it is.
But with an exponentially less capable aircraft.
>sand people aren't going to be knocking A-10s out of the sky.
Willing to put that to the test?
>loiter slow and low
Planes don't do that anymore. Not only does that put them at huge risk it also isn't necessary because of modern precision guided weapons.
>tanks, APCs, vehicles, radar stations
So do Apaches and Bradleys

>Also in terms of survivability
A-10s were lost by flying low and slow. Eventually they were forbidden from flying in contested air space because the threat to them was so great.

>>34426240
Correct, however Interdiction cannot remove all enemy assets

>>34425167
This implies Drones, B-1s, and current Multiroles aren't doing COIN ops just fine basically the same way the A-10 does. And they're not falling apart as fast.

>>34425215
A-10s aren't much less vulnerable than any other plane in terms of taking damage, and far more vulnerable to SPAAGS and MANPADS.

>>34425231
Nope, the F-35's at ~$32k now, vs ~$25k for the F-16.

>>34426265
MANPADS are not basic AA assets in COIN.
COIN aircraft expect incidental AA fire from rifles and MGs, the existence of a even late cold war electro optic AAA on a technical is a existential threat for Tucs with a likely fall back until ground assets remove it, an A-10 in the same situation can easily deal with the threat

>>34425285
Less than half the original A-10 fleet is still operational (~283/716), it's only going to get worse as time goes on.

>>34425486
That's still a disproportionate loss rate for how few A-10s were in theater.

>>34425981
Not by much.

>>34426038
A B-1 can carry a lot more munitions, cover a far larger area, and stay overhead a lot longer.

>>34426158
Technically that only happened after the Republican Guard fuckup.

>>34426172
>You can't have super-expensive stealth fighters and nothing else.
>Implying stealth is optional
>2017

>>34426310
It's really that they were built for a tactic. That tactic seemed like a good idea when ZSU 23's were a realistic problem that seemed like it needed some kind of solution, and small guided missiles seemed like Buck Rodgers bullshit.

By the time the A-10 entered service, it was obsolete. The tactic it had been created for, strafing Soviet convoys in the Fuda gap, was really fucking stupid and would have resulted in the loss of A-10s to no advantage.

These days A-10 are used as a worse Viper. They really only remain in service because of politics.

>>34423041
>Bathtub was designed to take 23mm shilka hits.

The rest of the plane would get obliterated by 23mm hei.

The bathtub was there to protect the pilot from eyeball guided, light AA (because of all the pilots that died to that in Nam- particularly A-1 pilots), Radar guided AAA is deadly accurate and generally has insane burst mass, you either don't get hit by it or you get hit allot.

>>34423654
Which should show you that alienating an entire group of people and giving them fewer opportunities leads to a breeding ground of extremism in your own country.

>>34427186
And Tunguskas and Pantsirs fire 30mm and have missile tubes, with a multi-radar networking array.

And it was total failure going on a low attack on the Republican Guard unit with the old stuff.

>>34427186
>>34427724
Well done you can say the exact same thing as the person but act like you're proving them wrong.

Because when you are fighting an enemy with WWI era AA capability you could use squadrons of Stuka Dive bombers if you wanted to.

>>34414601
The F-35 has a higher maintenance cost per hour of flight than the A-10.

>>34428539
And adding A-10 maintenance to that cost is cheaper, how?

>>34412192
This.
Op kill yourself.
Well
Dont kill yourself.
Read about the gun thats mounted on the plane.
Then kill yourself

>>34424665
this

>>34428583

Because you can use the A-10 for missions that don't require stealth, which is most missions nowadays. This also frees up F-35 pilots to spend more time training for high-risk strike missions instead of doing CAS.

>>34429054
You can use the F-35 for missions that don't require stealth either. In fact, you can load them fucking down with weapons when you don't give a shit about stealth.

>>34425229
>the plane must also play the role of babysitter for infantry?
That's CAS loitering basically.

>>34429054
the F35 has more available hard points and a greater payload