>Slow as hell
>Low ceiling
>Glide bombs will have poor range as a result
>No SAR radar to provide targeting in adverse weather conditions
>Carries 2 tons worth of Armor and gun for a mission using standoff munitions
The A-10 is probably one of the worst platforms to launch SDB from lol.
This is like seeing the navy put a flight deck onto a battlecruiser hull and being like: 'see, I told you battleships aren't obsolete!'.
Normally I think the F-35 circlejerk has gone to far and has in fact circled around to being Reddit. However it turns out there are still a bunch of these stupid Mike Sparks tier idiots kicking about.
You're pretty much right on all counts but I have a counter-argument.
>brrrt
brrrt is cool as hell, but i dont want the reputation she's got built up to get shattered by the reality of obsolecence. Kinda hoping she gets retired soon so she can go out on a high note. keep her dignity and whatnot.
Aircraft are not gendered you spergtard. The idea they are is as silly as Mike Sparks worst ideas. Everything childish is bad in an adult because it's weakness and weakness is degenerate.
You have no stake in A-10. You never worked on nor flew them. They exist as pixels for you.
Manned ground attack is stupid not least because CSAR but there's a lot more not that you actually care what things to in real life.
M61A1 sounds better than the dumb meme cannon on the A-10. Not only can the F16 carry a superior payload, but it can also strafe all the same and frequently does in combat zones.
I will not argue further.
Shit taste
I like living, A-10 sucks for supporting troops. It's the aircraft equivalent of the M14 and needs to just fucking die and all you cocksucking gay pseudoboomers who love the plane should die with it.
Fuck you.
I hate you.
I'll fuck your mom too.
Your pathetic rotary cannon goes
>brrrt
Mine goes
>BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
We are not the same.
I can't help but think about how the weight balance of the A-10 is affected by its armor and gun. I want to make a gen II A-10 by removing the cockpit armor and the gun. But that's like 5 tonnes of weight. Would the plane even be stable after taking off all that frontal ballast?
>A-10 can take a direct MANPADS hit and still fly home
>want to remove that feature
>Planning to get hit is planning to fail
>Not being weighed down by the cockpit armor makes you less likely to be hit
>Manpads always hit in the rear anyway
You know what's better than taking direct hits from MANPADS?
Not taking direct hits from MANPADS.
Put bomb revolver Infront instead of hard points. Fuel in back. As both deplete it maintains balance
>f-35 brrrt ("lol only 20mm")
>Superior A-10 Stopping Powah BRRRRRRRT
When will they learn?
F-35 has a 25mm, planelet retard.
>brrrrrreddit
Name a single fighter in the USAF arsenal that doesn't BRRRRRTTTTT
F-4 phantom
I said name a fighter in the USAF arsenal.
The F-4 is retired, no longer in the USAF arsenal.
Also that's still wrong because you can add gun pods to the F-4 and the E model has a built in gun.
Anyways that's entirety besides the point, every fighter jet the USAF has goes BRRRRRTTTTT dissolving the the one point gAy-10 fags love to tort.
fippybrrpy
normalfag meme
go back
They exist for the same reason still want battleships
they fucking look cool
I don’t think even A-10 haters can disagree with the aesthetics argument. This is also the reason why I would rather wear olive drab or BDU into battle than digital camo or multicam or whatever other gay bullshit. Modern military aesthetics just look like shit. And if you think about it, missiles are gayry for making dogfighting and other cool and manly forms of combat obsolete.
I gotcha senpai
Theyre essentially overpowered inefficient COIN aircraft at this point. They're armored against SEAD failures, where we come in low and slow and they've hidden a shilka well, but that still going to be an airframe loss even if the pilot gets home.
I really don't know what to make of these. Yes they're cool and infantry loved them in afghanistan, but would they actually be survivable in a near peer war? I doubt it though i really don't know.
Obsolete and useless are not the same thing. If anyone was trying to put in orders to build new A10s they'd be retarded, but there are still plenty of things that can be done with existing planes.
The problem is re-winging them isn't that far off building new airframes cost wise and we are doing that.
Reddit: the plane
This
Reddit: the post
Reddit: The poster
>I can't believe these people still exist
Have you ever maybe considered 99% of twittertards are retarded?
I will happily lose a war with inferior equipment as long as it looks cool as hell. They should never get rid of the A10. 2000 years from now I hope they've converted them to space fighters.
This but with invasion stripes
Imagine if the A-10 was in WW2. Would it be good or bad?
Would have been very good, although it would mostly actually be used for recon and strike missions (IE mosquito style).
It would be incredibly accurate even with dumb bombs from fairly high altitude and the targeting pod would provide incredible recce ability for the time.
Bad, ww2 was littered with 10 thousands of 88mm AA, it's a kinetic hellstorm, allies losing 40,000+ aircraft is unimaginable numbers today, as today's environment has only a few missiles, which you can chaff
it would be something
>A-10 haters still seething for 50 years and counting
may Sprey burn for eternity
Sprey did nothing wrong (literally he didn't do anything in regards to the A10)
Will we ever get an A-20 that's cool and unique like the A-10?
The A-20 will be an Airlander with the AC-130’s loadout. Whenever it goes BRRRRT the flying bum will drift a few dozen meters aft.
I don't care how much you hate McCain and the BRRRRT Reddit meme, the plane is still valid. You are an idiot and your opinion is worthless.
A-10 is peak reddit
If exactly the same plane was called not A-10 but An-10 all those fudd Ameritards now defending it would rightfully call it laughable obsolete slavshit.
Air support nowadays is delivered with high efficiency in both damage and cost (because a sortie where you miss shit or even lose your plane is costly as fuck) by PGM.
The A-10 isn't designed for PGM, it's designed for fucking WW1 tier strafing runs. Lugging around that small penis compensator 30mm just detracts from providing effective air support with PGM.
It's the same American fudds defending it that swear to .45 or 30.06, claim the M14 is better than the M4, claim the .50 was the best aircraft armament of WW2 and all the other American fuddlore.
Listen fat, she may be an old bitch, but she ain’t useless. Back in the Gulf War, me and corn pop but the fear of god into Sadam with the A-10. We would strafe anything that moved just to hear Irene’s mighty purr, so the way I see it, all this talk about blue on blue should be replaced with talk about backing the blue. And you liberals need to learn that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And hot damn Pierre Sprey made the perfect plane, so by God you better keep your libtard hands away from it.
——-
Shrimp fries and Semper Fi from Biloxi Louisiana
God Bless
Posted from Bill’s Samsung Galaxy
Just strip the gun, replace the armour with composites and more fuel for longer range. Modernized electronics. A-10B for the rest of the century
>remove all the weight up front so the center of gravity is so far out of whack that the entire plane needs to be redesigned
Good thinking. Any other great ideas?
For maximum troop morale, also design an externt speaker pod that plays "America, Fuck Yeah" every time something launches. Also, give it a gun again in a later revision.
i prefer su25 over a10
dont know why
>t. Vatnig
acutally no, i fucking despise them
i just like some of their equipment , also mi 28> mi 24
It's cheap and doing its job, that's it
It absolutely is not cheap
>cheap
Brother in Christ it’s the most expensive shit imaginable it doesn’t even have modern electronics and it costs a arm and a leg to modernize even the modernized versions cost a arm and a leg it’s a fucking flying bath tub
All the circle jerks about the A-10 miss the absolute brilliance of the propaganda campaign around it.
They got absolutely chewed up by Iraqi AA, but some clever sonofabitch released pics of the mangled plans and spun it into flying tank memes.
Meanwhile the real MVP of desert storm air support is forgotten.
Wasn't that meme around before? Le heckin luminum bathtub
Based and Guided Munitionpilled
Because it can drop 4 guided bombs and guide each bomb individually to different targets. It was the only plane in Desert Storm to have this capability.
1991 was 32 years ago.
Correct since that's how time works.
There are people on PrepHole who were born in 1991. Let that sink in.
People born on 9/11 have able to drink for over a year.
F-15Es used Paveways extensively, and could easily carry 4. F-117s could in theory carry 4 smaller Paveways, but in practice only carried a pair of 1-tonners. The Brits also had buddy-lasing capabilities, and the USN had the A-6E, which could carry up to 5 1-ton Paveways.
The F-111 fell prey to the same swing-wing hate squad that shitcanned the F-14.
Like being borderline impossible to maintain?
Yea that's not a meme, that's the reason we stopped building swing wing planes.
Variable-sweep wings are a maintenance nightmare and spend more time on the ground than in the air, especially as the airframe ages; the only reason why the Lancer hangs around is that you can cram a ton of ordinance in it.
That's a good payload
Ironically, the F-111 would have been an infinitely superior choice for this.
And for double irony, the F-35 is close to being cheaper per unit than the A-10 with all the desperate and haphazard attempts at modernization.
Okay, you like the F-111. But why? It only has 4 hardpoints.
8 hard points actually, with rack extenders that can carry multiple bombs per hard point.
... and an internal weapons bay
Are you sure you're thinking of the F-111?
Damn, I wish I had a gf with rack extenders
Turns out the rest of the world is stuck in the 80s at best, so we should optimize for beating that.
le reddit plane hehe
Why can't people understand an older platform thar was designed before missiles were a thing might struggle versus a 2023 built f35? If you don't ever modernize and incorporate new technologies like stealth, it is going to struggle. Though if you look at Russia digging straight line trenches and sending across open fields, you wonder if not only the a10 designers had also considered the geopolitical realities and limitations of the Russian army in the 21st century
What is amazing is that it still is a viable platform for CAS despite all of the political pressure to retire it. The Air Force would love to, but the ARMY has said they would immediately take control of the planes which the Air Force won't accept. It's why the A10 was a top choice for Ukraine at the start of the war (and Zelensky had to back down to avoid upsetting the f35 purists).
> What is amazing is that it still is a viable platform for CAS
It really, really is not. Unless you have total control of the airspace.
And if you do, “pilot dropping hand grenades out the door of a Cessna 172” is a viable platform for CAS and also much much cheaper
>Why can't people understand an older platform thar was designed before missiles were a thing might struggle versus a 2023 built f35?
It struggled against the contemporary A-7. The A-7 had a moving map display tied to the INS and a HUD that provided the CCIP and CCRP release cues from the bombing computer. The problem was the A-7 was limited in fuel when it had to go into Vietnam, and pilots couldn't see shit through the jungle canopy so they needed to orbit around and get guidance from FAC.
>it still is a viable platform for CAS despite all of the political pressure to retire it
If all you do is drop bombs on ragheads, sure. For actual war? The A-10 is utterly useless.
>the ARMY has said they would immediately take control of the planes
Not only are they legally not allowed to due to the Key West Accords, they wouldn't spend BILLIONS building entire Amy A-10 schools for pilots and maintenance crew when the airframes are close to retirement, and ONE general said that in the 90s just to spitball solutions. He was promptly told that it wouldn't be feasible and it was never mentioned again. And yet, people still claim the Army wants the A-10 as a matter of policy. Their policy is that B-52 or carrier pigeon, all that matters is that the ordnance hits where they ask. Not what's carrying it.
>Key West Accords
Fuck it, if the crayon eaters get to have jets why cant the army too? Literally a bunch of made up hoo ha to give the airforce a reason to exist, you cannot convince me otherwise
>No SAR radar
>No Synthetic Aperture Radar radar
Top zozzle, m'lad
It doesn't matter, USA can SEAD any system into the ground, so the burgers can even send Santa Claus into battle, because anything that can be threat will simply be mixed with the ground.
Frankly I don't know why we bother with that hunk of shit, everyone knows we should've given them at least 50mm rotary guns but the cowards in airforce RnD say gay shit like "The gun is already cripplingly massive, making the same thing but bigger wouldn't even fly." and "How did you get into my house?". Everyone calls me a retard when I suggest the minor modification of making the guns smoothbore to use APFSDS and canister shells but they never explain why its retarded, thus leading me to the conclusion that they are the real retards since they lack the greater understanding of english to articulate why I'm an idiot
The solution is to retire the thing and build dedicated Arsenal Planes. Large aircraft with huge amounts of payload that fires shit from hundreds of km away. The powers that be are, however, pushing for the missile pallet meme. Where a transport aircraft drops a load of pallets with missiles in them and they parachute down and loiter and fire from there. Nowhere near as cool and it means you either have to build more transport aircraft to do it (therefore not really saving the cost vs a dedicated aircraft) or have their job be torn between dropping those off and actually dropping off supplies.
So, build a giant aircraft to do it instead.
b-1b would be ideal for this role, you could stick a massive radar on it or just use f-35 data link and have it loft spamramms from 100km away
We bought and paid for them, might as well use them. They might not be useful until we establish air superiority but the A-10 can help keep costs low. Didn’t they all get new sets of wings recently?
> the A-10 can help keep costs low
Except it doesn’t
Nothing like sending out shit we already paid for is it?
We don’t have a cheap alternative that can be sent out to deal with enemy emplacements or armor, we have the F-15E and the F-35. Once we destroy the enemy’s air defenses we need something that can be put in the air rapidly that can fire $30,000 worth of 30mm at a $1500 Toyota rather than an $80,000 missile.
> Nothing like sending out shit we already paid for is it?
By that logic we might as well send out B-2s since they’re already paid for
JDAMs are $10,000 (well, they were before Bidenflation, I'm not sure what they cost now). Also, if you're just busting technicals with no air defense, APKWS2 is (or was) ~$20,000.
>We bought and paid for them, might as well use them
An aircraft isn't your Toyota Corolla. Airframes have a limit of hours in them. Refurbishing airframes to extend life cycle is expensive. The company that made it went out of business two decades ago, so spare parts cost more as they're out of production.
Using an aircraft for longer than it should be is akin to having to buy it all over again.
Remove the gun, still best cas, fill gun space with targeting pod even better cas.
What's the point of establishing air superiority if you don't have a stol bomb forklift like this to utilise it, and delete every ground unit in the area doing it's 12 sorties a day dropping major tonnage of iron on target everytime, whilst still being able to rtb after taking small arms and manpad hits from the opfor remnants.
Oh yeah, scrap the A10... Just let the infantry clear trenches and bunkers instead, chairforce cunts only want to play tic tac toe in the sky and contribute fuck all to the real fight on the ground, atleast congress made those lazy fuckers forced their hand
Drones do it cheaper, fast movers do it with less risk.
Do we still even need A-10s when man-portable drones can perform the same mission for a few thousand dollars apiece?
Not really the current drones are peace time platform, A10 is a wartime platform, which comes down to maths.
Tonnage per mission - Survivability X Takeoff from shitty frontline runways (more missions per day).
How many tons of bombs can the platform put on relevent (typically frontline) targets per day
>This is like seeing the navy put a flight deck onto a battlecruiser hull and being like: 'see, I told you battleships aren't obsolete!'.
in the real world the USN put tomahawks on a battleship and this was used for 20 years as an argument that BB's weren't obsolete
>Low ceiling
> A-10 Ceiling: 45,000 feet (13,636 meters)
> AGM-154 JSOW has a range of 12 nmi (22 km) for a low altitude launch, or 70 nmi (130 km) for a high altitude launch.
Tell me you need more.
A10 makes complete sense when it only had to go up against sand people.
But the A10 would probalby have a really hard time in a war like in ukraine.
I'm not sure man
The Su-25s have been the most prolific and used aircraft type in the entire conflict so far
How?
Not to argue with you here, i really want to know how it survives flying into active war zones over ukraine.
Flying really, really low
So hugging the deck is in 2023 still as much a problem for AA&radar as it was when i first was invented.
Yes but you are much more likely to eat a MANPAD or get rekt by functional look down shoot down equipped fighters with BVR missiles
>still as much a problem for AA&radar as it was when i first was invented
Not really, it's just that both Ukraine and Russia are risking a lot whenever they send the proper radars and SAMs to deal with low flying aircraft.
Hugging the ground doesn't help you do penetration bombing raids like it did, because you'll fly into a S-300/S-400 or equivalent. However, it still masks you from MANPADS and stuff like SA-8s and SA-11s.
It's faster than the A-10, and pilots are essentially hugging the ground, pitching up, firing rockets in a loft trajectory to avoid flying over enemy held territory and turning back to fuck right off while popping flares to cover their escape.
For all the "loiter time" arguments people make about the A-10, such aircraft have to be used for "one pass, haul ass".