A better BRRRRRRTTTTTTTTT?

Anything organic to the Army so the Air Force can't bitch about it

>>35080653
slap a gun on a 'drone' and call it a day

File: Jay002.jpg (120KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x768px

>>35080653
there are none

>showing its age
A-10 is in its prime, what are you talking about?

File: IMG_0087.jpg (35KB, 361x370px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 361x370px

>>35080698
The absolute fucking madman.

File: ohXJxaOlA-0S7pP61oPwhA_r.jpg (482KB, 700x498px) Image search: [Google]

482KB, 700x498px

>>35080698

>>35080697
Mostly I am talking about how its really high heat signature makes it vulnerable to MANPADS. Most of the forces it is currently being used against don't really have much anti-air though.

>>35080730
we must develop a counter to manpads

>>35080697
masterful kek!

>>35080698
good luck convincing a fighter pilot to fly something with 4 engines.

>>35080698
>TWIN GAU-8s
Jesus Christ, anon. Think of the children!

>>35080738
I mean flairs and chafe aren't really a perfect counter especially if you are caught by surprise.

>>35080738
>we must develop a counter to manpads
What about ablative wings, engines, and control surfaces?

File: 1503867531092.png (744KB, 932x682px) Image search: [Google]

744KB, 932x682px

>>35080749
>No cannon

Lol!

>>35080759
Just open the cockpit and tell him it has a vagina.

File: Third world a10.jpg (183KB, 804x603px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 804x603px

>>35080738
We adopt the carrier fleet for the air.
Tuccanos flying in formation around the a10.

>>35080767
It's a modular plane man, they can probably slap a sleek gun-pod onto the wings that won't make it harder to detect but still be good cannons.

>>35080782
>mother a-10 protecting her baby tucanos in an animal documentary style video

i want it

File: F35 dropping ordinance.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>35080767
The F35A has an internal cannon. The F35B & C can carry gun pods.

>>35080794
>A-10 fires cannon
>enemies shit and piss themselves, women have miscarriages, everyone in a 50 miles radius has a mental breakdown with psychotic episodes the rest of their lives

>f35 fires it's pea-shooter
>enemies laugh at how pathetic it is

>>35080767

and what exactly do you think a cannon brings to the fight?

>>35080814
cannon balls

>>35080794
can we have a dropdown flexible M61 mount for the cargo bay?

>>35080698
why did biplanes go away?

>>35080839

why would you want that?

the F35 has a 25mm cannon as opposed to the M61's 20mm.

20mm strafe doesn't really do much.

>>35080814
Mostly sustained firepower as apposed to 3-5 missiles. It also doesn't care about any sort of e-warfare or countermeasures. More cost effective as well especially against low value targets like infantry. Still effective against unarmored and lightly armored vehicles.

File: Nicole_Watterson.gif (1MB, 444x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 444x360px

>>35080653

She's a total MILF.

File: 1349834889312.png (18KB, 691x597px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 691x597px

>>35080819
>shooting cannonballs out of a up scaled GAU-8

>>35080814

ask the Vietnamese

>>35080869

how many strafe passes do you think a fighter has for a full belt of ammo?

>>35080855
>fly in circles around target
>continuous 3 minute long strafe

I see a bunch of people are suggesting the f35. It could possibly take up the role, But despite the air force's marketing it does have a lot of disadvantages. Namely it has a much shorter loiter time, can't carry as much ordinance, and no cannon.

>>35080782
>use heated drones as decoys
Why is this a bad idea?

>>35080762
Great now i'm erect AND hungry.

>>35080893
On the low RPM setting an A-10 can fire its cannon for over half a minute. The exact fire rate varies due to spool up time. firing in 2-3 second bursts you can get a lot of passes off.

>>35080790
>It's a modular plane man
that's the entire problem with the f35

>>35080901

>much shorter loiter time
i've seen FI with F-35s, and their legs are about as long as an internal gas only F-15E. which is super impressive given the F-15E's reputation as the endurance king.

>can't carry as much ordinance
it's probably about the same in terms of bombs in a permissive environment with pylons. in a non-permissive environment, yeah it may only have 2 or 4 GBU-12s, but that's 2-4 GBU-12s more than the A-10 stuck at base because it's grounded due to the FEBA being inside a SAM ring.

>and no cannon
USAF F-35s have an internal cannon, the USN and USMC ones have external cannons.

>>35080960

ok so like 10 passes. speaking from personal experience, a standard M61 fast mover fighter jet would have 5-10 passes (also depending on hi vs lo rate of fire).

the F-35 probably has 3-4 passes. so yeah, i'd agree not great. but fast mover strafe honestly is more for effect than actually killing people. that is something that you're going to have to get used to.

File: feels-good-man.jpg (37KB, 600x653px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x653px

>>35080698
>reports in 2019 mention an A-10 A22 getting hit hard by anti air, losing 3 engines and 2 wings among other stuff, but it still was returning safe to its airbase
A man can dream.

File: super stol.png (447KB, 1209x914px) Image search: [Google]

447KB, 1209x914px

gimme that venetian blind plane

>>35080653
>what are some alternative ground pounders that can fill its role either in service or in development?
>Implying the F-15E, F-16, F/A-18, F-35, B-1B, AH-1, AH-64, and Drones don't already do its job.

>>35081093

are the AV-8's not flying around too?

>>35080738
It's called "not flying stupid low when you have the sensors and weapons to kill a truck from 50 miles out."

>>35080974
>I'm retarded
How is it a problem, dumbass?

>>35080698
Fund it!

>>35081110
Less than 100 left as of 2010.

>>35081124
Then why are we using planes instead of reusable rockets carrying parasitic missiles?

If we intend to use an inefficient means of air control, why not do it with style?

>>35081185

sad. harriers were always ugly cool.

>>35081196

that's kinda what planes are.

File: 1474554338883.gif (186KB, 200x152px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 200x152px

>>35080794
why does the drop then rocket take off make me so fucking hard.

why cant i get hard for my wife anymore?

hashtag getting old sucks

File: 1480604777611.png (211KB, 467x348px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 467x348px

>>35081092
what the fuck is that and why have i never seen that before?

>>35081010
>the F-35 probably has 3-4 passes
You definitely can't compare 3 seconds of fire of 25mm and 20 seconds of fire of 30mm.

File: super stol2.png (1MB, 1209x915px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1209x915px

>>35081238
it was allegedly seen in a classified aircraft exhibit at Plant 42 in 1988

>>35081248

you absolutely can compare them. you're not going to get the same strafe results out of the F-35 as the A-10. it's not a slow strafing platform like the A-10.

but what exactly does strafe bring to the table? why strafe? you're leaving the comforts of medium altitude, increasing the risks of CFIT, small arms, AAA, and MANPADS fire... why? for what reason?

>>35081155
It's always cheaper to fly an integrated system

>>35081155
It's a logistical nightmare, it barely fits the name of multi-role and will never be an omni-role.

>>35081300

omni role is a meme.

like literally.

it's Dassault saying that they want a cool new word for multi-role.

>>35080689
Have you ever hear of the Gray Eagle my friend?

>>35081282
I don't know man, I just say you can't compare them, be it the effects or the causes.

>>35080888
Oh, nothing then, since adding a Cannon to the F-4 did nothing to improved performance against Vietnamese aircraft, (see Air Force specific loss and kill statistics for details).

>>35081327
Maybe it's a meme but it's the goal: a plane that can be assigned to different missions without modifications.
F-35 is not that plane.

>>35081386

nor is any plane ever, now or the forseeable future until we have an Ace Combat style with 99 missiles that work equally well air to air and air to ground and fuel and ammo resupply just by flying over a line.

you're always going to want to add more weapons. guess what, that means taking away hardpoint from bombs for missiles or vice versa. or you want more loiter. congrats, you can't put bombs where your drop tanks are. maybe you want an extra sensor. now your gear retraction speed went down because of the induced turbulence and drag.

combat aviation is about tradeoffs and acceptable levels of performance.

>>35081342

so why are we talking about strafing then?

figure out WHY you'd want a jet down low to strafe. then tell me why it matters so much that a fast mover isn't great at strafing vs an A-10.

>>35081297
>>35081300
>Idiots who don't understand that the modular design means the parts are easier to replace and upgrade
You actually believe Sprey, don't you? So why are "integrated" 4.5 Gens more expensive than the F-35A?

>>35081386
Considering the F-35 can do the F-117's job, the F-16's, the A-10s, and recon planes, and a good chunk of EWO capability with zero modifications it's pretty close.

>>35081431
>so why are we talking about strafing then?
I wasn't this anon. Just IN THE CASE you want to brrrt something on the ground (and I don't know why) of course the 1350 30mm shells are far better than 180 25mm shells, and this is incomparable...

>>35081422
>that means taking away hardpoint from bombs for missiles or vice versa. or you want more loiter. congrats, you can't put bombs where your drop tanks are.
No. You can put bombs on the same points than missiles or drop tanks on the Rafale.

>>35081595

wait what.

i'm saying that the hardpoint that holds a bomb could hold a drop tank instead.

yes, some pylons can have missiles and drop tanks. but you're not going to ejector-launch an air-to-air missile on the same pylon as your drop tank.

>>35081422
>F-35 is only outclassed in payload by the F-15E
>On just internal fuel it outranges everything but the E
>Can fly places denied to non-stealth fighters

>>35081646

and if you want to have more bombs, you put on pylons. or more missiles. or drop tanks.

just like every other fighter. you just have the option to be LO unlike every other fighter that's not the F-22.

the F-35 is a perfectly capable multi-role. it'll go from good to great when you get more of them in the field and pilots complain about the design decisions that were driven by engineers and not by pilots (most of which should be software fixes).

>>35081327
>omni role is a meme.
If we put davy crocketts onto rockets, then we don't need bombers.
If we use high altitude jets, then we can be more flexible in our bombing/support formations.
If we use gunpods on rockets, then we don't need to worry about gen X active protection technology.

As much as I love the a10, CAS is a relic of the past and is obsolete.
The missile/rocket is king.


>tl;dr
We need SR71's/YF12's, F117's, B2's, B1's, B21's, F4's, F9's, F14's, F16's, F22's, and A10's. And just use better missiles/rockets, that way everything will be omni-role and we get to keep all the cool planes.

>tl;dr tl;dr
We need SR71's/YF12's, F117's, B2's, B1's, B21's, F4's, F9's, F14's, F16's, F22's, and A10's.

>tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr
We need A10's.

>>35081690

your definition of CAS and the CAS that i've just spent half a year spinning up for with every service and some foreign ones seem to be divergent.

>>35081701
CAS stands for close air support, and it is air support that is delivered from close to the ground.

>>35081124
How come helicopters are still used if they're more vulnerable?

>>35081740
They have doors.

>>35081723
It takes 5 seconds to Google the definition of something. You have no reason to think that's what CAS is.

>>35081749
That's stupid and counterintuitive. It should be called proximity air support.

>>35081723

no it's not.

from JPUB 3-09.3, the US military CAS doctrine manual:

>Close air support (CAS) is air action by fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and requires detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces.

nowhere does that talk about altitude.

>>35081766
>>35081749
Yes. I am to be a moran. Please allow me to fix my post:


.
>>35081327
>omni role is a meme.
If we put davy crocketts onto rockets, then we don't need bombers.
If we use high altitude jets, then we can be more flexible in our bombing/support formations.
If we use gunpods on rockets, then we don't need to worry about gen X active protection technology.

As much as I love the a10, (relatively) low and (relatively) slow is a relic of the past and is obsolete.
The missile/rocket is king.


>tl;dr
We need SR71's/YF12's, F117's, B2's, B1's, B21's, F4's, F9's, F14's, F16's, F22's, and A10's. And just use better missiles/rockets, that way everything will be omni-role and we get to keep all the cool planes.

>tl;dr tl;dr
We need SR71's/YF12's, F117's, B2's, B1's, B21's, F4's, F9's, F14's, F16's, F22's, and A10's.

>tl;dr tl;dr tl;dr
We need A10's.

>>35081765

or maybe you're just uneducated and spouting off things to people who actually do this for a living.

listen to this and reflect on your life.
https://youtu.be/tvTRZJ-4EyI?t=1m2s

>>35081743
What?

>>35081789
Nay I say. I have ability to think critically and can make logical considerations for non-total warfare just as well as those who do so for a living.
In the realm of hypotheticals and discussion rather than actual proposals, all are equal because only the validity of statements matter.

>>35081817
When was the last time you saw the coast guard or a hospital use a vtol jet?

>>35081831
>Attack helicopters
how would they be used when the enemy has anti air ?same goes for transport

>>35081629
>i'm saying that the hardpoint that holds a bomb could hold a drop tank instead.
That's not what you said but whatever, some planes don't need any modification and some need, the F-35 is one of the latter and therefore is not what an omni-role should be.

>>35081822

you haven't demonstrated any of that in this thread.

>>35081874

Terrain masking and doppler notches are a thing.

>>35081890

what modifications do you think a F-35 needs that a Rafale or any other jet doesn't?

>>35081945
Pylones to begin with, and even the internal bays have to be modified depending on the payload.

>>35082144

Once again, how is this different from any other jet? Other than the fact that other fighters don't have internal bays.

>>35080763
Flares simply don't work against Igla at all.

>>35082195
Flares and laser countermeasures are effective at disrupting Igla's sensors, especially used in tandem. Russia's new MANPADS extends beyond IR for target recongtion for that reason.

>>35080653
The same F-16s and B1's that do the same jobs at lower cost and higher speed anyway.

>>35082195
T. Shill in every thread

>>35082171
Which part of "modification" don't you understand? The F-35 has to be send in the workshop each time the mission changes, the Rafale (since it was my example) doesn't.

>>35082318
I have never heard this before, you got a source on that?

File: AC-130J.jpg (80KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1280x720px

>>35080653

>>35082505
It's in the manual. It doesn't mean that the Rafale is god tier given its limitations and compromises, but it was designed like that, for cheap logistics, while the F-35 is intended for big ass armies that can afford more planes and don't care about such silly things.

>>35082505
External pylon mounting is more complicated on the F-35 then loading the stations on an F-15, but it's something ground crews can do pretty fast. Not exactly the end of the world.

>>35082318

That's so ridiculous that it didn't deserve more of a response than this.

So google search results have become increasingly shit the past 5 years...

Anyone still have that picture of the kitbashed model of the a10 and a russian helicopter?
It ended up looking like a transport version of the A10 and had a brownish paint scheme.

>>35082616
Winnar. Why throw a $250,000 missile at a problem that can be solved with a $200 shell?

I can't decide who I hate more, A-10 bbrrrrttt fags, or the Super Tacos thinking it's going to replace it.

>>35083432

because a $5000 MANPADS is a proven anti-AC-130 weapon.

because the AC-130 only flies at night.

because a JDAM is $30,000

File: a10 meets hind.jpg (52KB, 650x374px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 650x374px

>>35082872

>>35083507
Is that the cost of the dumb bomb, or the bomb with the guidance kit?

>>35083527

with the kit.

a Mk 84 is like $3k.

>>35083560
Are Mk 84s still being produced, or did we just have a literal shitton of them in inventory?

>>35083527
Complete. For 500 pounders the base is the $2000 Mk 82. The GBU-12 LGB is one with a $20k laser guidance kit, The GBU-38 is one with a $27k GPS guidance kit.

>>35080794
>dropping two whole JDAMs instead of fucking up a position with depleted uranium shells
The f35 sucks

>>35083748
>Implying you'd actually do what you need to with a GAU-8 pass

>>35083754
Maybe they're one of those fags that believe hearing the fart gun lowers morale.

File: bunker buster.jpg (146KB, 1282x687px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1282x687px

>>35080794
How far did that last bomb penetrate into the ground?

File: Hind-10.jpg (37KB, 650x353px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 650x353px

>>35080698

>>35083774

it depends.

>>35083786
>>35083520
Make it a VTOL and we've got a winner.

>>35083774
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ff3fKXx50Zs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyaIrhGrCzo

>Can carry 8 internally plus another 16 on pylons

File: 1423794075871.jpg (244KB, 904x573px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 904x573px

>>35083520
>TFW phil drops a picture you dumped here from back before the sun was born.

>>35084024
>No more fire power
>Worse engine placement
>Worse flight envelope

>>35084070
but it'll cost three times as much, and think about all the job creation!

File: Horatio_Phillips_1904_Multiplane.png (443KB, 703x576px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 703x576px

>>35080698
We can go further.

File: a10 transport 6.jpg (51KB, 650x522px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 650x522px

>>35083827
Not viable with the given design.

>>35080653
A-11 thunderbolt
Same exact plane except instead of wings it has katanas for wings
cut tanks in half when it runs out of bullets
nothing personal kid

File: 80s-mishmash2.jpg (109KB, 1025x515px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 1025x515px

Freedom/A10 on the left, congress on the right.

File: F-35 AMRAAM Launch.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>35081222

File: F-35-Bravo-for-Yuma-Arizona-Squadron[1].jpg (829KB, 4248x2832px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 4248x2832px

>>35082318
>>35082713
There's only 2 differences:

1. For external pylons you need to peel off the stealth tape patches to expose the hardpoints - you don't need to go to a workshop for that - that's the entire point of the F-35 using tape rather than putty gap-filler.

2. The F-35 has the option of using pneumatics to eject weapons rather than pyrotechnic charges - this is superior because anything pyro needs an armaments SNCO to check that everything's correctly fused / armed. In some squadrons you'll see them riding around on pushbikes because they have to check over half a dozen jets (which aren't sitting next to each other) in a matter of minutes.

>>35080653
A-20 Thunderbolt III
Railgun on a plane.

For when armies worldwide field laser weapons and missiles are no longer viable, the option to shoot them with bullets always remains. Plus an electromagnetic gun can be easily switched on the fly to fire a range of munitions, such as single large bolts at high velocity or stacked series of smaller pellets with a completely variable rate of fire.

>>35080653
The low and slow ground support mission is obsolete.

This was before targeting pods existed allowing pilots to see on the ground. A-10 was from a time where the pilots were literally eyeballing the target. You need low and slow so you could figure out where the bad guys and good guys were.

>>35085266
Are attack helis obsolete too?

>>35085324
>High mobility low level tank hunting
Kind of. It's a powerful card to play but you could make a case that the risk is too high for the reward.

It's not strictly obsolete, like low-and-slow CAS, because it's still an effective option with advantages compared to other options.

>>35085266
There are fucktons of recent combat reports from guys on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan praising the A-10 for exactly that low and slow eyeball targeting ability, though.

The real problem, IMO, with the A-10 is that it's too much plane for that kind of role. It was designed and armed to kill hordes of tanks, and the 30mm is massive overkill for strafing insurgents. The ideal replacement for the A-10 would be a small twin turboprop aircraft with a Vulcan or GAU-12 (with lots of ammo) and a decent number of hardpoints - in other words, a new Bronco.

>>35085379
See: >>35081690

>>35085406
>>35085379
I mean...

See: >>35081778

>>35085379

how many of them are from the JTACs/whatever the Marines call their JTACs, though?

because i could care less what a grunt thinks. CAS is inorganic fires to him. i care what the dude who's reading me lines 4, 6, 8, and remarks/restrictions thinks.

>>35085412
>i care what the dude who's reading me lines 4, 6, 8, and remarks/restrictions thinks.
nani?

>>35085415

the things that are mandatory readbacks for me in a CAS 9-line.

and nearest friendlies in line 8. which isn't mandatory but if your air doesn't do it, i'd tell him to clear high and dry or try to work him a Type 3 on the other side of the country because he's gonna frat someone.

>>35080653
just build a Cobra Rattler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU9V37Go0e0

>>35085357
Anyway they could be could be made more effective? Is it worth to invest on them to improve tank hunting and ground attack capabilities ?

>>35085379
>Trusting a guy on that much amphetamines to pick what is a target and what isn't while he makes a two hundred mile an hour pass.

Yeah, that's a fast way to get fucking dead. Anyone who says they want that has never seen the consequences.

>>35085481
What if we had them divebomb for their strafes instead of coming in like pod racers?

File: 01 (33).jpg (61KB, 650x420px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 650x420px

anyone got the picture of the a10 equivalent of this?
The middle one may not have had a tail boom.

>>35085488
They aren't set up or made for dive bombing and would still want to use the gun on any concentration of trucks and people they spotted, to kill those targets of opportunity like Canadians, civilians and literally the people that called for support.

You *could* build a better A-10, but it would be like trying to build a better battleship or a better tank destroyer: and idea whose time has passed.

>>35085522
You're lying, only the british kill their own.

My point is that they aren't really doing 200mph passes, the point of aim doesn't shift that fast. They fly down at the target of their strafe like in a dive bomb. Yeah, I get it a 20 degree isn't comprable to 55, but the principles remain.

File: davy_crockett.jpg (173KB, 971x449px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 971x449px

>>35080653
pic related. let off a few of these bad boys and ya don't even need an air force.

>>35085597
>ya don't even need an air force.

See: >>35081690
See: >>35081778
>If we put davy crocketts onto rockets, then we don't need bombers.
>If we use high altitude jets, then we can be more flexible in our bombing/support formations.

A jet can launch a davy crockett faster than infantry can.

>>35085597
>ya don't even need an air force
You won't have an air force left if you field a weapon like that.

>>35080730

It's not the heat thats the issue. It's too slow to counter MANPADs and the armour is pointless when it gets it's ass end removed.

It's why they didn't use them in the Gulf War because they were too slow to be effective, even against the shitty MANPADs that Saddam had, so their jobs were fulfilled by F-16s.

The only reason they maintain relevancy is they are surplus vehicles in a conflict with no parity or threat. The worst that they face is truck mounted 12.7mms manned by afghani insurgents with little to no AA training.

>>35085663
Even then it's not worth maintaining them. It's slower and carries less then a fucking viper.

>>35085646
>well within conventional weapon territory
>radiation on par with a frequent flier
Yeah, you definitely have a point that isn't absolutely retarded.

>>35085719
Tiny atomics can escalate to nuclear war very easily, for no rational reasons.

>>35085761
So the solution is to only use them against the non-nuclear sub-human peons.

>>35085788
Why not a conventional bomb? Someone will have a seppuku headache when a davy crockett goes missing.

>>35080814
boolet

To the fools complaining about how vulnerable and inefficient they are, you're missing the point.

The machine is a symbol of a nation's technological prowess. Its ammunition is depleted uranium, for goodness' sake. The pants-shitting bzzzzzttt is practically a psychological weapon.

File: 170804-F-JG201-003.jpg (28KB, 888x591px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 888x591px

The Textron Scorpion and the Super Tucano are currently being tested by US pilots. If anything is going to replace the A-10, it'll probably be one of these.
http://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/1299940/edwards-testers-get-feel-for-new-experimental-light-attack-aircraft/

>>35080851
high drag low speed

>>35081222
because you don't have a wife

>>35080653
...the F-35. That's already the plan. Effective or not, here it comes /thread

File: 1413938479201.jpg (247KB, 1400x1000px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1400x1000px

>>35085519

>>35084070

>Stealth coating
>S-ducts
>Longer/slower loiter
>Greater range and speed

>>35087554
>200% more BRRT per BRRT

Sweet doccumentary / propaganda for congress
https://youtu.be/zLjNC7ZNA8k


.
>>35085522
See: 5:00, looks like a dive bomb to me.

File: a10 snek.jpg (133KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1024x681px

Is there nose art other than snek, shark, and hog?

>>35088014

it's not technically a dive bomb since you're not dropping a bomb. it's a strafe pass. similar mechanics for setting it up.

i personally think we should go back to prop driven planes, the lower heat signature might be worth the reduced payload. It could be cost effective if you gave it enough armor to resist 12.7 during its approach. It probably couldn't carry a 30mm gun, but rockets and missiles could make up for it if we had enough planes in the air.

>>35086057
>US Flags on the Super Taco
So ashamed of my country

Can we literally not just stick some better engines on the A-10, lengthen the wings a bit and see where we can bolt on more armour, and then call it a day? You can't really make anything much better, so why not improve on the A-10 by correcting for the minor weaknesses it has.

>>35081431
Not the same guy, but the gun allows the plane to be flexible in the targets it can engage and engage them longer than with only pylon-based munitions. Most planes treat the integrated gun as almost a sidearm, to use in emergencies, but the CAS role and decent armor of the A10 allow it to face down anything smaller than 23mm on the ground with its gun and come out on top. It lets you safely trade repairs for kills, especially when hunting mobile gun AA that other squisheir planes might die to. So really, strafing allows the A10 to perform its ground attack / tank hunting role better, as it can suppress soft targets for extended periods (if not obliterate them) as well as take on soviet style mechanized AA formation. It was designed with that in mind, and it's pretty good at it.

tl;dr, A10 shoots everything on the ground real good.

File: 400[1].jpg (26KB, 1108x400px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1108x400px

>>35088292
>F-35s can use orbiting B-1Bs with 144 SDBs as weapons platforms

>>35088292

you hit on part of it: the gun is for suppression mainly and killing secondarily. now are you starting to see why having a smaller gun isn't that big of a deal?

>>35086057
>Textron Scorpion
Strap a canon onto it and shift the engines above the wings, and you have got a deal.

>>35085465
West Germans used to have a heavy focus on small helps with AT missiles on them, they'd hover behind trees and pop up to take a shot and then go right back down. I think our equivalent is the DAGR rocket. Cheaper than using a plane, and pretty safe, considering the low exposure time. That said, any tanks without support of some type (infantry, mobile AA) is a surprisingly vulnerable target to things dedicated to hunting them.

>>35088326
I honestly think the lowered ammo capacity of the 20mm and 25mm cannons makes them less suited for this role. 30mm is overkill for strafing infantry, yes, but you can engage whatever you see on the ground with it, instead of having to use other more limited munitions. Now, if there was some sort of long range gimbal / flex mount for the 30mm, that might be worth a dedicated platform.

>>35085597
>some faggot thought this was a bad idea and shot it down
Im still mad

>>35088438
So you're saying we need the A-20? // pronounced A-twen(ty)
We'll redesign it so that you can hotswap between 12.7, 20, 25, and 30mm cannons.
Airforce already has bomb loaders that can handle several tons. I don't see a problem.


Better idea. The A-22
>>35080698 + >>35087554
3/4 wings are disposable.
6/8 engines are disposable.
3 cannons, the outer two are modular and can be swapped out for 50bmg, 20mm or 25mm cannons.
Middle cannon is also modular, but only has the options of being a 30mm cannon or a rocket cannon.
Hardpoints on the upper wings for gunpods (or rockets).

Dear congress, FUND IT!

File: A-10_noseart_proposal_v14.jpg (86KB, 776x447px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 776x447px

>>35088438
also
>smaller/lighter rounds
>less capacity
I don't understand.

>>35088544
Neither do I, but the specs for most of them have a reduced total number of rounds. I imagine it's due to the 30mm assembly having a larger amount of space dedicated to ammo storage.

>>35088534
I don't know much about bomb loaders, but that much flexibility might be overkill. That said, if you can fit all that in a 180 degree traverse mount, I'd invest in it.

>>35082284
Flares don't. DIRCM works now but counter (home on jam) is gonna be implemented soon in every IR missile.

>Russia's new MANPADS extends beyond IR for target recongtion for that reason.
It is for killing micro drones, quadcopters and such..

File: 534534.jpg (248KB, 920x613px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 920x613px

>>35085465
>Anyway they could be could be made more effective?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpO-VpNxGRY

>>35088211

It's built by SNC, also for appease american autism.

Fun fact: the ID letters are Brazilian, not american.

File: 1503570917210.jpg (44KB, 479x640px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 479x640px

>>35080738
FLYING
HARD-KILL
APS

>>35080813
>25mm apex which has a larger blast frag radius and higher lrthality is worse vs infantry and light armor
fuck off sociopath

>>35080813
The Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-23 beats them both with fucking TEN THOUSAND 23mm rounds a minute

>>35082284
>>35088583
I never understood how jamming missiles could work.
If the missile has any idea of where the aircraft is, then it can just use a velocimeter + trig + the last 0.1 seconds of data to predict the path and keep on that path, and then just re-engage once sensors re-establish contact. Surely it can't be too hard to program that as an if-then for when a new cluster randomly shows up in the input.

Yes, jets are maneuverable, but unless the missile is right on top the target shouldn't get out of the sensor field of view.
What am I missing?

>>35080653
the super tucano combined with f-22s/f-35s

>>35088818
and Reapers anon

File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (243KB, 1024x631px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1024x631px

>being a propfag
>2017
look at them
look at them and laugh

>>35088544
The F-35 has programmable bursts and better aim prediction. As in it can make the rounds count more.

The rounds are a lot more advanced and designed around light armor/soft armor kill.

>>35083827
Fucking Marines, I swear.

>>35081092
That's so fucking cool.

It's RCS will be 2,000m2; but cool nonetheless.

>>35080782
>tfw no air force buddy to bomb ragheads with
>tfw no cool topgun wingmen to perform air support with
why even live

File: 34425_original.jpg (194KB, 900x587px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 900x587px

>>35089634

>>35088292
>decent armor of the A10 allow it to face down anything smaller than 23mm
No. The A-10's only armor is around the cockpit. The rest is made out of regular plane and can be damaged easily.

>>35083582
Still being produced at reduced rate.
We burnt through the old inventory during Iraq & Afghanistan + sales to allies doing their own war stuff (like France in Mali and Saudis in Yemen).

>>35088816

they can change direction

>>35088134
see these fuckers fly over my house every week

>>35089667
Lets be fair, an A10 coming straight at you is a pretty narrow target. Short of actual flak, from that angle it's vital systems are pretty well protected (besides the engines, obviously). Wings can have plenty of holes in them and work well enough to get back to base as long as the control surfaces are mostly intact. Again, not saying the A10 is perfect or magic, but it's pretty good at what it does.

File: m.346.3.jpg (75KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1200x800px

m-346

Its cheap per flight-hour, it does basic ground-attack, so it can double for an advanced trainer since it does aerial refueling.

>>35089729
What's that, kill Marines both American and British?

>>35080813
>The Virgin F-35 and The Chad A-10

>>35089729
sure as long as it never turns and smashes straight into you.

>>35081092
a e s t h e t i c

>>35080851
It proved to hard to fly a plane with two wings up the enemy's Arse.

>>35089729
>aircrafts fight 1 vs 1 against single tank on the battlefield

>>35089854
What about when the enemy is grounded?

>>35089919
So you're saying to overwhelm them with a swarm of dozens of a10's battle groups ( >>35080782) at once?

>>35089976
>human waves tactic
Well USAF has solid experience with that. Losing 50000 airmen in Europe during WWII, more than anyone lol.

>>35089919
You know what I mean. The point is that the A10 is mostly able to ignore fire from armor or mech formations that don't have dedicated AA missiles attached. This means that these targets can't really do shit against A10 strikes, since their organic AA (7.62, 12.7) can't drive off the planes because the pilots know they pose little to no threat. Again, this is by design, all the DSHks on your tank platoon can't save you from the BRRRRT.

>>35090030

that's why the Soviets invented the ZSU-23 and the Tunguska.

>>35090030
For Soviet mech units organic AA are MANPADS and 30mm canons. BMP was designed with storage place for MANPADS.

>>35090046
ZSU-23 is overrated. Strelas and Iglas are kings.

>>35090076

organic mobile medium-caliber AAA still is gonna wreck an A-10 going 150 knots down the chute for a strafe pass.

then the MANPADS are gonna wreck whatever's left coming off-target.

>>35090062
Shit, I forgot the BMP had all that extra elevation in its gun.

>>35089793
>Douchebag is the "good" side meme
When is this going to die?

>>35090030
Even 7.62 will damage the gun's hydrailucs or jam the feed pretty easily with a good hit. More importantly, for some godamned reason, all of the aux stuff from the engines is in the empennage. Also the fuel tanks in the fuselage and wings and any of the hydraulic lines will depressurize a system and mission kill the aircraft.

File: 1504050857494.jpg (94KB, 500x556px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 500x556px

>>35090965
>hydrailucs
End me.

>>35080698
Just so you know anon I wrote up a formal request to the DOD for "Review of Potential" on what basically amounts to your drawing.

Cost me 134USD$.

Ill report back with what they say in a few months.

>>35082713
>>35085171
Dude, mounting a pylon or working on the internal bay is infinitely more complicated than doing nothing. Do you have an idea of what it implies? dedicated crew, dedicated tools and so on... Talk about versatility...

>>35091588
>my pocket knife isn't versatile because the scales are secured with torx screws
That's the argument you are making.

>>35086057
tucano ftw

>>35089535
>turboprop

>>35084760
Add little jets on the botom?

>>35091668
BS, these operations take hours, compared to planes that not only dont need these operations but also can fulfill different missions in one flight without a backing engineer regiment.

>>35080653
-COIN Turboprops (Tucano, etc.)
-drones
-AC-130 Gunship
-F-35
-attack helicopters

>>35090965
Yeah, but even if all of those things happen, it can still return to base, rather than turning into a fireball instantly.

>>35091965
viability/complexity isn't the same as versatility.

>>35091974
This.

>>35092181
Exactly. F-35 isn't versatile. It's a multi-role only if you can provide a wide and heavy logistics.

>>35092289
>Exactly. F-35 isn't versatile. It's a multi-role only if you can provide a wide and heavy logistics
>Plane designed to use a broad range of weapons and be easy to maintain while doing a broad range of missions isn't multi-role
You Spreyfags are getting desperate now.

>>35092309
Stop it with the "sprey" argument, only muricans know what it is.
>Plane designed to use a broad range of weapons and be easy to maintain while doing a broad range of missions isn't multi-role
It is not. The plane is a platform, it doesn't mean it can perform all the missions like it was nothing, it needs modifications each time.

>>35092427
not anon, but:
You're complaining about an america-centric argument regarding an american made and designed plane in a thread about how great the A10 is...

File: 1455017482129.png (170KB, 575x350px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 575x350px

>>35092427
>Stop it with the "sprey" argument, only muricans know what it is.
Pierre Sprey's on RT enough you should know who he is, you sure argue like him.
>Stupid, and overconfident in your ignorance

>It is not. The plane is a platform, it doesn't mean it can perform all the missions like it was nothing, it needs modifications each time.
Are you seriously still trying this? No plane is simultaneously loadable for all missions and needs maintenance and re-arm between each flight.

>>35092616
>No plane is simultaneously loadable for all missions
See: >>35080698 and >>35081690 / >>35081778

>>35091588
>Dude, mounting a pylon or working on the internal bay is infinitely more complicated than doing nothing.
...okay? You're talking about changing the loadouts of jets; the pylons of a Rafale don't just materialise by themselves. The F-15E is a bit different because of how its CFTs work, but it's the exception, not the rule. F-16s, F/A-18s, Harriers, Rafales, Typhoons, Gripens, etc have to have pylons attached and detached in almost exactly the same manner as the F-35.

>>35092637
>Retardposting

>>35092616
>Pierre Sprey's on RT enough you should know who he is
No one outside small circles listen to this garbage.

>>35092667
>F-16s, F/A-18s, Harriers, Rafales, Typhoons, Gripens, etc have to have pylons attached and detached in almost exactly the same manner as the F-35.
No they don't. the only case they have to fly without pylons is during air shows.

File: d74.png (380KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 600x600px

>>35080698

>>35092751
>Still posting as ignorantly as before

>>35080653
oh look this thread again

haven't read it but here is my prediction

people explain in painful detail with numbers and mission history included why the a-10 and it's design are obsolete and why the air force is moving to the f-35 and other people deny everything while refering to armor plating and 'low and slow', with 'psychological effect' every fifth post.

>>35080653
>Take F-16 with top mounted conformal tanks
>hollow them out as shrouds and mount two GAU-8's within

New tippy top quality BRRT

>>35092795
>greentexting because no argument

>>35092900
You don't have arguments, you've got completely ignorant statements of no value.

>>35092915
YOU don't have argument apart from "sprey", not my fault if you can't read.

>>35092729
>here is how we can make a single aircraft viable for any mission
>nuh uh
Not an argument.

File: 1402655943_a-37.png (662KB, 763x444px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 763x444px

>>35080653
>When you have a JDAM strike at 1800 but limbo practice is at 1845.

>>35081110
>>35081185
>>35081204

AV-8's are ungoddly unreliable and accident prone.

The only reason the Marines fly them is because it;s literally the only fixed wing they can fly off their babby shit helo carriers.

I expect the F-35B to be similarly accident prone and useless.

>>35092975
>>35093039
>Hurr durr here's all my completely retarded ideas not worth arguing against
>Hurr nobody wants to play wit me durr

>>35093051
>I expect the F-35B to be similarly accident prone and useless.
Nah, it's a far easier, safer plane. The pilots have remarked they can master STOVL techniques in tens of combined sim+real flight hours, while the Harrier took hundreds.

>>35093051
>>35093074

Can't wait for the AV-8 for DCS so I can experience the joy of being an ill fated marine slamming into the ground again and again.

>>35093056
>hurr durr
Talk about an argument.
F-35 cannot fulfill different missions without modifications, contrary to other planes, deal with it. And it can certainly not fulfill the role of the A-10, completely different.

File: Beating%20a%20dead%20horse[1].jpg (22KB, 445x285px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 445x285px

>>35093157
>contrary to other planes

>>35093157
A-10 role stopped to exist with MANPADS invention.

>>35093157
>F-35 cannot fulfill different missions without modifications
Surely you've got some evidence to support your claims.

>>35093207
A-10 technically never had a real role beyond keeping CAS-related funding in the Air Force and killing the AH-56 Cheyenne program.

This thread is the reason why the A-10 should be retired.

At least it will be remembered as a machine of the yonder days rather than getting painfully dragged into the future by fanboys.

>>35093262
Yup. The Air Force has been trying to get rid of them pretty much since they got them. They performed better than you'd expect them to in the Gulf War, but even the, it demonstrated the glaring flaws in the design and how obsolete it really was.

>>35093221
>pylons or not pylons
>bay modifications

>>35092751
Firstly, jets are configured to carry payloads that meet operational requirements. Any hardpoints / pylons that aren't needed are removed for drag reduction. In training (which is what fast jets spend most of their time doing) this happens even more often because they only need EFTs, AMCI pods and sometimes bombs. On top of that, some jets have pylons that can only be put on if other pylons are removed (eg: the Gripen's STA 5/6, A-10's STA 5/6/7, etc), some jets have caps that go over AMRAAM / Meteor hardpoints, etc. Some jets also have different sized pylons for different weapons and if you want to use an AMRAAM on a pylon that was previously carrying a bomb you also need to change adapters and release units.

Also by your logic, if F-35s can use external pylons, they can just leave them on anyway, just like legacy jets apparently.

>>35093282
What of it? The F-35 can mount pylons and carry a wide variety of munitions that cover most roles. It's got some minor gaps for internal carriage (it can't carry things like the AIM-9X or HARMs internally, IIRC), but it's got plenty of space for carrying things.

>>35093277
>They performed better than you'd expect them to in the Gulf War
Even then it was thanks to the Maverick missile and that they could use said missile's camera as a night optic to fly more than anything intrinsic to the plane.

>>35093315
>>35093317
With or without modifications is the point.

File: giphy[1].gif (786KB, 250x231px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 250x231px

>>35093282
>Bays require no more modification than any other plane's hard points
>Implying it's that much work to bolt on the pylons

>>35093351
What modifications though?

>>35093351
What do you even mean by that? It was designed from the ground up to mount external hardpoints. There are no special modifications necessary to use them.

>>35093351
>Installing and removing these parts is somehow "new" to just the F-35
It's a completely fucking stupid point.

I think we can all agree that davy crockett rockets and an integral cannon are the solution for the true omni-role plane.

File: 1293782412738.jpg (35KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 750x600px

>>35093427

File: phone on vibrate.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>35093438

File: game-of-thrones-spoils-of-war-daenerys-03[1].jpg (1MB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1440px

Was I the only one getting BRRRRTTTTT vibes when watching this?

>>35093040
What the hell is that
Looks like what they would fly in the fallout games

>>35092100
Not if it loses hydraulics or much fuel. The A-10 carries less fuel than an F-16 internally and it is much slower in a cruise. It loses range fast from speed holes in the fuel tanks. Mor importantly, if they lose both hydraulic systems (not hard to do since the lines run parallel) they can fly using the trim tabs, but they cannot safely land. If the gun is damaged you can't shoot it and all of the avionics are outside of the armor and easy fodder for machine guns and cannons alike. If the fuel boost pumps are damaged fuel must be crossfed from the wing tanks to the main tanks in order for the engines to get at it, effectively halving the fuel supply. Any peice of metal entering a turbine engine will likely cause a catastrophic failure.

The A-10 is unique in neither its resistance to damage nor its redundancy.

>>35093752
Meanwhile if you get lucky and shoot out one of the F-35's Electro-Hydrodynamic Actuators it doesn't affect any of the others, and the computer can compensate on the fly for loss of the control surface.

>>35093846
So you're saying we should retrofit A10's with them?

>>35093878
No. And you can't. And there's no point to.

File: Bofors_Anti-Aircraft_Gun,_Nothe_Fort_,_Weymouth.jpg (1MB, 3874x2906px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3874x2906px

>A10 is underpowered for modern armor
I think I have a solution.

Why haven't we built a jet around an m102 yet?

>>35080814
Fun

>>35080814
Big bullets.

>>35081681
The problem is they will be putting valuable flight time on an incredibly expensive airframe that isn't required for most of its roles. Strike and CAS doesn't require a bajillion dollar stealth fighter.

>>35094782
The F-35A is only expected to be about 15% more expensive per flight hour than an F-16C. Also don't forget that if they're not flying in combat, they're flying training missions. Flying CAS and strike missions in places like Syria is essentially just continuation training.

>>35094808
Remember "expected costs" when reading the development expenses.

>>35094843
These costs are updated annually though and (at every 2 or so years) independently analysed, rather than being held onto for a decade at a time.

>>35091965

you're a fucking retard.

shut up when adults are talking.

>>35089634
thats perfect. Love it.

>>35095282
I don't know, if the F-15 really can be operated with zero support or ground crew that would be impressive.

Here I thought the second seat was for a WSO, not a wizard to magically conjure new weapons onto the hard points.

File: b1.jpg (277KB, 1600x1280px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1600x1280px

>>35091555
Money well spent. Could very well change the face of CAS. Must make a thread about what they say back.

>>35093040
so most of its hardpoints are fuel tanks?

>>35095451

the point is that having to fuck around with internal bays and pylons isn't anything new. you still need a 7 level to make sure you didn't load up the jet in a illegal configuration, or you accidentally exceeded max ramp weight or something similarly stupid. you're acting like the F-35 is the first jet where they would have to add or remove pylons, and that it's some horrible logistics problem that's never been done before.

>>35095451
>Here I thought the second seat was for a WSO, not a wizard to magically conjure new weapons onto the hard points.
... We have midair refueling. How long until mid air rearming?

File: Gremlin_DARPA_Program_1490902113098[1].jpg (184KB, 600x613px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 600x613px

>>35095511
Soon™

>>35088256
No, as others have said its pointless. The very concept of the A10 is obsolete and it was a stupid concept to start with. Even during the 80s they expected to lose the whole fleet in a few weeks.
It's a giant meme, in the literal sense. An idea that keeps propagating itself because it's attractive to potential listeners. A plane that shoots tanks with its huge gun? BRRRRZZZZTTT? It's got ARMOUR so it can survive!
In practice the gun could penetrate current tanks when the airframe first entered service and basically nothing that came after, heavy / mid sized SAM warheads are fucking gigantic, and you have to RTB if you take a MANPAD and survive anyway. The aircraft is out of action for a long time if it's even recoverable. And a good or lucky MANPAD shot (the kind that come from people with training and actual near par tech or money) will go straight for the engines which are right next to all the tail control surfaces. Lose both engines at low altitude, you fucked.

File: 1497457347734.jpg (651KB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

651KB, 2448x3264px

>>35089535
>images.duckduckgo.com

>>35091974
/THREAD
FINALLY

>>35080851
1930s memes, such as "streamlining" and "horsepower."

The F-35 platform of course. It is the benchmark close air support aircraft and will be for decades.

>>35094782
>The problem is they will be putting valuable flight time on an incredibly expensive airframe that isn't required for most of its roles. Strike and CAS doesn't require a bajillion dollar stealth fighter.
>Implying having several different airframes isn't far more expensive when one plane can be configured to do it all

>>35080879
Don't lewd Nicole

>>35080794
Shill get out

>>35080653

Just another domestic successor craft built from ground up. Rotary ''drum barrels'' filled with small programmable sub-munitions, interchangeable and modular. With the added underwing regular stuff.

Small loitering bombs, pyros missile, suavs like coyote.

Another version with dual GAU-23.

File: marco_scheloske_redleader05.jpg (73KB, 800x593px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 800x593px

>>35080698
>This Red leader, standing by

Is there a jammer configuration for the F-35, or is that redundant for a stealth aircraft to also have jamming capabilities?

>>35097074
As-is it can use its radar as a forward jammer. In theory some time in the future it could be adapted to carry the Next Generation Jammer pod. Though more likely whatever the Navy replaces the Super Hornets with will have an EWO variant.

>>35086057
Fuck off BR.

We're not buying your shitty P-51 bastardization

>>35080730
>M.A.N.P.A.D.S.
i challenge you all to find an acronym worse than this

>>35097281
Moro Islamic Liberation Front

>>35097281
Communications Operations Center.

>Hey, go sit on the COC

>>35097281

PSS SOF

File: 2b362f20ab5a0db3118a21b92282fa65546a61ed5f38fe57a70f511e6c3f9a98.jpg (49KB, 590x393px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 590x393px

>>35096029
>1930's memes
god fucking damn stop calling the natural selection of better equipment a meme. that shit is retarded. aero engineers in western countries test every wacky design they can, and to no ones suprise, no crazy flying pancakes or grid-winged planes are being produced or deployed anymore because '''THE SHIT DOESNT WORK'''. huge leaps in warfare technology are never as cool as sci-fi or the silly designs used by desperate engineers in 1944. instead of lazer guns with battries for ammo we got streamlined guns and maybe a good bulpup one day. instead of caseless ammunition a few assault ships in the US navy get real life railguns that require scrupulous ammounts of energy but still provide explosive power without actual explosives. the future isint as cool as we want it to be, because we are living in it.

File: 1ebb44f8db64950ff9ba8b6eac7f799ac83452c79c06bacd8848991273ae5d9c.jpg (10KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x250px

>>35097381
>PSS SOF
took me a moment but i kek'd, but post what it stands for cause i want to believe you
>>35097317
>COC
this one is barely funny and doesnt produce nearly as much shame as MANPADS
>>35097295
>MILF
i think you win but mussie english speakers get a small pass for their ignorance of porn words

>>35097405
>better equipment
See: >>35080698 to be proven wrong.

>>35093728
a cessna

>>35094183
what is ac-130?

>>35097447
Precision Strike Software for Special Operation Forces.

Or something close to that.

>>35097532
>see a cool drawing in a college rule notebook to be proven wrong
how fucking retarded are you? did you not read my big ass post? do you not fathom that i would have had to see >>35080698 first in order to understand its replies and subreplies?
im sure the faggot who drew an a10 facing forward with extra wings and engines was a aero engineer who definitly wasent simply daydreaming amd shitposting his cool art. thats high quality b8, killer.

>>35085242
>your entire post
i want your dream to be real, but no amount of enhanced tech will put a railgun on a jet engine. the shit is too big, too heavy, and with the amount of energy required the shit might as well run on electricity alone, and even then no way in hell all that energy would be stored in a device fighter jet sized. it would be great, if it were remotely possible.

>>35097565
>what is ac-130?
Not a jet.

>>35097660
>designs are engineered first and conceived of second
Now who is being retarded? (you are)

>>35097789

The USAF will often colloquially call C-130s jets in line with all their other aircraft (the only other turboprops they have are some weird AFSOC jets and the T-6)

>>35081092
Not even Sparky would fall for this one.

>>35080653
What the A-10's replacement would be depends largely on what exactly the Air Force want out of an attack plane
If they just want a bomb truck, the role could be served by existing multirole planes or a UCAV
The alternative would be to get something more survivable with better attack-style flight characteristics and a cannon, rather like the A-10 itself
The most crucial aspect of a next-generation attack plane would be affordability, as the A-10 is considered expensive to operate

File: IMG_2155.jpg (95KB, 736x473px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 736x473px

>>35083520
>air intakes and exhaust for an engine that isn't needed anymore
So close

File: gavin glider 1449444298825.jpg (73KB, 781x580px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 781x580px

>>35098048

>>35080814
bbrrrrRRRRRTTTT