>https://warriormaven.com/air/air-force-massively-upgrades-classic-a-10-warthog-with-weapons-cyber-ew
She has returned.
The A-10C is so back
>https://warriormaven.com/air/air-force-massively-upgrades-classic-a-10-warthog-with-weapons-cyber-ew
She has returned.
finally
the E/A-10
It's in the game.
it goes bzzt and then it goes brrt
>A major announcement on the A-10
>Everyone thinks the announcement is that it's getting fricking retired, but it's actually this
I swear, the USAF will keep these in their inventory until they physically break down mid-flight just to keep them out of the Army's hands
because the lead-brained geriatric fricks in congress keep kneecaping the plans to get rid of these old useless maintenance queens.
It's because they need to kept around in the case of a domestic conflict.
It's the sunk cost fallacy, they sent $1.1B putting new wings on 173 of them between 2011 and 2019. Now they either have to admit that spending $6.3M per plane was fricking stupid or prove it wasn't stupid by keeping them even longer..
Forced by congress
I just like how it makes you piss yourself with anger that they're still aroud
I hope the A10 outlives the B52
>child
They are super easy to work on so long as parts don't go backorder.
Drones are far better for that work while A-10 logistics and support require much more expense and far more people.
Am I the only one on /k/ who actually worked on USAF fighter/attack aircraft? Where do you children get your ideas about aviation? Cartoons?
>They are super easy to work on
kek
t. did Gripen maintenance
You doing Gripens is fine but that doesn't make 16s somehow difficult to work on under austere conditions. Been there done that for many deployments and it's simply not difficult. Most recent aircraft aren't difficult for real mechanics nor is maintenance training.
Phantoms were an impressive asspain to work on which is a major reason they're gone (other than poor countries where labor is free).
Does anyone ITT personally know of a fairly modern fighter/attack aircraft that really DOES suck to work on?
>A task designed for kids straight out of highschool out and put through tech school isn't difficult
I don't know what that guy is on about
>airforce wants to retire frame so they can quit paying for it to fund yet more dogfighting fighter jets despite the last real peer class air to air kill being maybe Vietnam (stomping dune coon fighters in Desert Storm doesn't count)
>Army offers repeatedly to take them all if the chairforce gays don't want it anymore
>NOOOOO IT'S OURS YOU CAN'T HAVE IT JUST LET US GET RID OF IT ALREADY WE'RE TIRED OF PAYING FOR IT REEEEEEEE
I hate the chairforce and fighter jet mafia so fricking much bros
It's kind of funny how after the better part of a century, the Air Force still lives in terror that the Army might just replace them with their own air corps.
It's almost like the Air Force used to be part of the Army but tried to argue that the Army and Navy were obsolete by doing a bunch of nuclear tests that failed to prove anything other than big explosion, and the Army and Navy just moved on with their own air assets like the Chair Force doesn't exist.
Kinda funny how the Air Force controls 2/3rds of the nuclear triad and all of its air assets are leagues better than Army and Naval aviation. Oh and we have the space force :^)
Modern drones and missiles makes traditional airforce obsolete, but we are not ready for that conversation yet.
>Modern drones and missiles makes traditional air force obsolete
Russia caused massive devastation with air power in the first weeks of the war. More recently they've effectively used unguided bombs, so what makes you think a nation with an actual air force and guided long range munitions that can into combined arms wouldn't be able to use air power to their advantage?
Regardless, air forces are still necessary for fighting against asymmetric warfare. The use of air craft in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan decreased casualties for the coalitions fighting ISIS and the Taliban, and conflicts like that could arise anywhere so nations still need an air force whether they are obsolete in peer to peer or not (which they are not).
And what good did that do them? The war has been a stalemate for two years.
If you want to argue "x is obsolete because Russians are incompetent" than drones are obsolete because Orlan 10 hasn't won the war for them, missiles are obsolete because Iskander hasn't won the war for them, rifles are obsolete because AK-12 hasn't won the war for them, helmets are obsolete because...
Or we can just admit the Russians are too stupid to learn useful peer conflict doctrine from
>Vietnam (stomping dune coon fighters in Desert Storm doesn't count)
What about the 1989 air battle near Tobruk
So good it got withdrawn from Service in Iraq.
they ran out of british people to shoot
I really, really wish they would just let the thing die. Don't get me wrong, it's a cool plane, haha funny 30mm brrrt, but it's wasted money.
>I really, really wish they would just let the thing die. Don't get me wrong, it's a cool plane, haha funny 30mm brrrt, but it's wasted money.
Kinda yeah but maybe there will be a war with some muslim Black folk without an airforce/defence so using AC-130 and A- 10 with guns that go brrrrr might br just very costeffective.
Also might not be, really not sure.
>Attack helis and fighter jets do this job better by firing guided missiles far outside MANPAD range
>UAVs do this job better, and without a pilot can take more risks
>The Bayraktar TB2 fills a similar role, and they all got shot down and eventually had to be grounded
>The Bayraktar TB2 fills a similar role, and they all got shot down and eventually had to be grounded
I think the A-10 is the only weapon in the entire western inventory where suggestions to send it to Ukraine get the response "let's not sabotage them like that".
if USA starts sending A-10 to Ukraine, then you know for sure it's trying to prolong the war.
A-10 could at least be a platform to fire cruise missiles, BUT F-16's can do that too and we have endless amounts of those. So it's really a weapons platform that exists but no one knows what to do with.
if the F-16s do their job and completely suppress Russian AD then A-10s might be able to do the funny maybe
With how common MANPADs are on the front I still don't think it'd be enough. They'd probably still be able to provide support but I have no doubt they'd be dropping somewhat consistently. They're not really any more survivable than helicopters on that front and both sides have stopped offensive helicopter CAS operations that aren't just "fling 128 rockets at that grid square 5 miles out"
I doubt it, there are plenty of MANPADS and other SHORAD that probably preclude the A-10 from being anything other than an expensive bomb-truck
There *were* MANPADs, but I wouldn't be surprised if their users were pressed to the front by virtue of being better basic infantry than the mobniks, killed, and had their launchers confiscated.
One thing I've noticed is how few of Russia's infantry use launchers of any description.
There is practically zero CAS being used by either side, Russian SHORAD is clearly capable of dissuading Ukrainian fixed or rotary wing from performing CAS.
It's more that Ukraine is trying to preserve its fixed wing assets until the F-16s arrive.
The Russian military has always been extremely heavy on air defense from fear of NATO air power, it would be odd if they went into the war with barely any stocks of MANPADs.
The fact that they've been in the habit of fielding few of them is probably just due to lack of threat. They'd run out of everything else they've been using lots of for 2 years first, before they run out of the thing they haven't been expending.
Although there'd be a window of time before they would adapt that could be exploited.
>suggestions to send it to Ukraine get the response "let's not sabotage them like that".
just make them QA-10s, unmanned. aint no reason it can't be done if shit like QF-4s and QF-16s have been flying for years.
>Ukranians flying FPV A-10s into tanks
Turning them into flying bombs spraying 30mm BRAAAAP on the way in would be pretty damn funny.
I would attack the Kerch Bridge with them, or what’s left of the Black Sea Fleet.
MiG-21
They could probably strip the engines off and use them to power a few long-range drones.
Or strip the plane off the gun and create the best technical
The article is complete BS. The only sources it draws from are announcements that the A-10 finally got certified to carry and launch MALDs.
I was gonna say, I’ve been talking to my homies at A-10 bases, and they make it sound like she’s going away for real this time
what can you use these against?
civilians, tribes with spears and bows?
orks
>fricking B2 did a better job at close air support
>A10 mostly good for mowing down friendlies
put a compooter on it
Adopt an A-14 NOW or I will continue writing mean comments about US Military procurement.
Do your worst, bub
I love how americans are so stupid that they keep a half a century old plane which was obsolete before it was introduced in service because it makes a loud noise.
Maybe it's because of its track record and not your headcanon about why you hate Americans
You mean the track record of the maverick missile. It works even better when you strap it into a non-piece of shit plane.
The F-111 and Predator were both outlived by the A-10.
Its track rekord is the f-111 more effective during desert storm, and later the reaper and predator ourperformed for coin
you mean the track record of the most friendly fire kills of a modern aircraft
>because it makes a loud noise
You can't always rely on heli waves
Cool
>But "brrrrrrt" 🙁
I swear every "Amelican patriot" infantryman from the gulf wars that I've ever met has a hardon for this awful plane because brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt and they liked watching low technology durkas explode.
A10's only exist to dunk on utter moronic thirdies without access to manpads and as a vehicle for extra missiles.
I say just give these things to the Army if they want it so badly.
They don't though. That's a myth.
Nope, the A-10 literally only exists because the Army got fed up with the Air Force and told them if they didn't field a dedicated A2G attack plane, then they would do it themselves and breach the Key West Agreement. There's been several times in the 20th century where Army Aviation experimented with fielding fixed wing aircraft and every time they got close, the USAF forced them to pull the plug or surrender the aircraft to them.
That was fifty years ago, anon.
>A10's only exist to dunk on utter moronic thirdies without access to manpads and as a vehicle for extra missiles.
So what? That's a use case.
This, the majority of our killing now is done exactly on these people. Not to mention a peer denied environment is shit for ALL aircraft not just the A-10.
It's fricking expensive for that. If you want to dunk on thirdies, the armed crop dusters do so for 1/10th the price per flight hour and can take off from anywhere, while if you need something more, the A-10 doesn't cut it and you'll be flying F-15s anyway.
It may be better in sheer dollars/materials to kill ratio, but you can't underestimate the psychological effect of something like the A-10. It imbues a sense of primal fear in anyone on the receiving end, and a sense of relief for the American infantry who know they're not the target.
A lot of US weapons are like this, notably the M2 browning. In Afghanistan you'd rarely see anything armored, so a lighter MG would theoretically work fine, but durkas fearing the M2 going BBUMBUMBUMBUMBUM and running the frick away instead of firing their RPG probably saved more than a few Americans over the years.
Plus, how can you put a pricetag on weapons that sound, feel, and look awesome and iconic? Power projection in media is worth its weight in gold
M2 Browning is another obsolete turd that needs to be flushed.
You're that sperg who has a stroke at the mention of the M240 / FN MAG, aren't you...
Go frick yourself.
I’ll take that as a yes.
M240 is fine, you could make a lighter and better gun but it would be marginal
same with the M2, where the primary draw of them is that we have a billion of them just lying around so we slap them on everything
Barrett proved you can make 240s lighter and shorter with little changes but the army preferred a fricked up overpriced titanium receiver instead
I have never seen a more moronic opinion. Were your parents related?
>It may be better in sheer dollars/materials to kill ratio, but you can't underestimate the psychological effect of something like the A-10. It imbues a sense of primal fear in anyone on the receiving end, and a sense of relief for the American infantry who know they're not the target.
Funny story. There was a bunch of Marines during the GWOT who were celebrating a strafing run from an A-10 and claiming the fear of it broke the insurgents who were attacking them. Turns it was a fricking F-15 and, surprise, ground troops are fricking moronic and can't identify planes. The rest of your drivel is as moronic as said marines, especially since all the power projection and good press would be turned around the moment an A-10 shows up dead, which it will if it's ever flown within a reasonable range of target with a fricking SPAAG, much less modern AA missiles.
>It imbues a sense of primal fear in anyone on the receiving end, and a sense of relief for the American infantry who know they're not the target.
It has the opposite effect on British infantry. Especially if the A-10 pilot has smudges on the binoculars he has to use to ID targets.
what's the cost to operate a-10s versus other alternatives in the usaf catalog for CAS?
A-10 is like $17,000 per hour
A-29 is ~$1500
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23299563/gao-23-106217-1.pdf
$22k/hr as of Q4 22. Looks like it's the cheapest fixed wing combat aircraft to operate, next cheapest is the Growler at 27k and then the Super Hornet at 30k.
As an aside, it's kind of funny how much cheaper Army aircraft are to operate than their Marine and Navy counterparts. It's almost like they aren't spending money on maintaining them.
>Looks like it's the cheapest fixed wing combat aircraft to operate
does that include MQ-9s?
Oh, I missed the F-16, it's also 27k.
I don't see drones in here at all.
>As an aside, it's kind of funny how much cheaper Army aircraft are to operate than their Marine and Navy counterparts. It's almost like they aren't spending money on maintaining them.
To be fair, Army Aviation mostly fields UH-60s and that isn't exactly cutting edge
>cyber weapons on a plane
I have a question.
How would this work?
Suppose the pilot has a button: "press to launch a cyber attack to disable the enemy S400". How would that even work? How would it connect to the target? Do Russian SAMs have WIFI hotspots or something? Wouldn't it have to be really close?
Seriously wtf
It's probably more for defense
I'd say two possibilities:
Its a non-directed weapon and you flip a switch, select a jamming frequency, and just leave it on until you no longer need it or it hampers the mission due to anti-jamming seekers.
Alternatively, its gimballed and you point the disruptor at a target and blast it with waves in a certain frequency to disrupt it, like one of those anti-drone guns but much larger and in a pod format.
you have no idea of the power of american EW dude, imagine a microwave gun that can see your computer and turn it off remotely with the power of screaming loudly
Give me malt liquor
This makes the US powerful and reddit/video essay morons sneed.
we are so back
WHEN
that looks moronic, would it even fly?
we should build it
>Steathog
fund it
Odds of them making it more maneuverable, Or at least make it something other than a flying bathtub?
I'm 100% confident she's only still around because of the Burrrt meme and to trick simple Burrrt loving people into joining so they can see Burrrt in person and go Burrrt when they hear Burrrt for the first time not knowing Burrrt is more dangerous for them then the damn enemy. Burrrt.
Russian SHORAD is getting thinner over time, not thicker. And I wouldn't put money on Mobik obr. 2025 onwards being better trained and equipped with MANPADS. It's not a short-term change, but Ukrainian CAS both fixed and rotary is likely to get more aggressive on the front over time.
useless without shells
ENOUGH WITH THE UPGRADES
The year is 3212; my crew just finished the latest updates to the venerable A-10. We've changed out her engines for the 4th time this century as propulsion systems keep improving. The size differences keep getting worse and worse and we're using 20kg of ducttape, but oversee refuses to allot us a new machine. My son is coming of age soon, and then it will be his turn to maintain it.
The martian israelite fears the gau8
The machine spirit shall not rest until it feasts upon Russian armor.
Just let her rest Chairforce. The old girl's served long enough and the Phantom needs a bingo buddy.
>the BRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT will continue until morale improves
Why wouldn't you keep them around? When it comes to existential conflict and your F-35s, F-22s, FA-18s, and F-16s are gone, you'll be glad to have shitty planes instead of no planes at all.
If F-16s are being lost faster than they can be produced in war time it means something has gone terribly wrong and the United States is facing utter destruction.
The last F-16 was made 19 years ago, I think you'd find that it's not quite so easy to just make more.
Wrong. They're still in production at Greenville. Why do you people not verify before posting?
https://columbiabusinessreport.com/state-celebrates-50th-anniversary-continued-production-of-greenville-made-f-16/#:~:text=Lockheed%20Martin%20moved%20production%20of,this%20year%2C%20company%20officials%20said.
>parts for export
Why do Reformers always have to lie?
They're completed at Greenville where several of my retired AFbros work. Why do you assume anyone who mentions that fact is a "reformer"?
You were never involved with F-16s and are a mere spectator/gaymer homosexual.
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2024-3-6-F-16-Block-70-Jets-Set-Off-on-Historic-Ferry-Flight-to-Bahrain-A-New-Era-in-Air-Defense
Literally a hundred times more F-35s are produced a year than F-16s.
F-16's being gone implies a total loss of all air superiority.
why isn't the a-10 just a drone at this point
why aren't all newer jets just drones? I don't mean fully autonomous just put the pilot on the ground somewhere
A-10's on mars.
Physical impossibility
Joke
*20 miles of airspace*
Your head
This shit is so stupid when you actually know how radara works. It looks cool though
>McCain fricks America one last time
>but this time, its from beyond the grave.
I hated that man long before Trump made it popular. There was a Senate hearing which went basically like this
>Airforce Gen: We don't need A-10's, they are shit at CAS, PGM's have changed the game. F-16's and B-1 Lancers with sniper-pods do the job better, are less likely to die and are cheaper. My evidence? OIF where A-10's got shat on by the Iraqi Republican Guard and got pulled from the flightline and replaced by F-16's.
>McCain: YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT DROPPING A BOMB FROM 30 000ft IS BETTER?!?!?! LUDICROUS! IMPOSSIBLE! YOU'RE AN IDIOT
That c**t.
Glad he's gone
People who hate the A-10 just parrot some guy named Pierre, Burton, the word 'reformers' and act as though any of that carried any weight in the Air Forces decisions. Funnily enough they have no quips about the B-52. Almost like the Air Force sees merit in keeping disposable, low cost airframes around. F-35 gays just keep on seething.
>Almost like the Air Force sees merit in keeping disposable, low cost airframes around.
Airforce has been trying to ditch the A-10 since 2010 or so.
They have been trying to get rid of the A-10 since it went into service. The Air Force is allergic to doing CAS duties. They were forced to adopt the A-7 because the Army threatened them during Vietnam if they didn't they were going to start fielding their own fixed wing combat aircraft again to fulfill their needs. They even trialed a few light attack aircraft such as the Fiat G.91. So the Air Force like a kid being forced to eat broccoli or make their bed stompted their feet over to Vought and got the A-7. Then during Vietnam even the A-37 Super Tweet was used to great effect. Post war the Air Force wanted to ditch all of it again. Yet again the Army threatened their own fixed wing units again. Then again like the children they are the Air Force stomped their feet over the Fairchild and whoever the competitor against the A-10 was and had a competition that we all knew who won. Fast forward to today and the Air Force has finally accepted maybe its time to actually start putting electronics on the A-10 so it can properly perform ita job.
>Fast forward to today and the Air Force has finally accepted maybe its time to actually start putting electronics on the A-10 so it can properly perform ita job.
Fast forward to today and the AF is putting lipstick on a pig that they do not want. Its really that simple. F-16 is the superior CAS platform, based on IRL data. A-10 got raped in Iraq.
A handful of airframes were lost during the Gulf War vs the hundreds of tanks and armored vehicles it yeeted. Perhaps you are unaware in doing ground attack against a somewhat near peer you are always going to lose some birds. Has always been the case.
I also forgot to add F-18s were also shot down during the Gulf War by SAMs, are they shitty too?
>A handful of airframes were lost during the Gulf War
The entire A-10 fleet got pulled off flight operations.
>Perhaps you are unaware in doing ground attack against a somewhat near peer you are always going to lose some birds.
The A-10 fleet got replaced with F-16's which completed their CAS sorties without incident.
There is nothing to debate.
Strange the Air Force abandoned their CAS specialized F-16 they were working on post war if the A-10 was so shit.
Modern CAS is dropping PGM's, something the F-16 requires no specialization for.
>Anon learns the A-10 fired 90% of all Mavericks during the Gulf War.
It was flying some of the least AD heavy missions against fricking Iraq. All it took was one Iraqi with a Igla and it was cooked.
IIRC it was like #2 or #3 in % of airframe losses after the USMC harriers and the Tornado (which at least were flying over 50 AAA positions and at least 2 layered SAM sites in each airfield raid)
>50 AAA positions
Actually I might have under estimated
On the first night of the war the Tornadoes and A-6s attacking Al-Taqaddum AFB outside Baghdad had to get past 148 radar laid AAA position, 2 S-6 batteries and a Roland emplacement (which the Tornados flew directly over at 300ft relying on their DECM to save them)
V with a random fedayeen with a igla
>S-6 batteries
*SA-6
It's an act of bravery that determined how many ground soldiers would die in the war. It was truly amazing.
F-111 replaced the A-10 in the tank busting role.
That thing was fodder for Serbs.
Tell me more, Serb
CAS is completely unnecessary and has been since WW1.
What makes you qualified to say that
Heard some Kurds personally say nice things about the A-10. Whether or not it is effective it was perceived as such by the peons actually on the grown.
Well it's not like they had too much to choose from, although arguably it's better than nothing, I sincerely think it would help Ukraine considering they are running low on Su 25s and they are basically the same from an operation point of view.
>A-10 is obsolete!
Considering how Ukrainians are using Su-25s effectively even without full air superioirty, I believe A-10s won't be that ineffective in future wars.
Everyone kind of assumes that the A-10s will ALWAYS be going up against weapons and technologies which made them obsolete. It is right to assume the worst in hypothetical situations. But reality is a bit different. A lot of things can go wrong and people work with whatever they have at hand.
Even the much hyped Russian military couldn't properly manage their air defense networks and ASFs. Much of their equipments are also outdated pieces of crap. Iran, North Korea, China, and random goat herding terrorists could only be in much worse state, if not in equal condition.
>Ukrainians are using Su-25s effectively
they are not. At best they are 'making do' or 'making some use of them' but it's hardly effective.
Ahh... the airforce shill thread.
The A10 is a god tier plane.
Anyone who doesnt like the A10 is a israelite.
>hur dur A10 obsolete and maintenance expensive!
Sure gayget, it only took more than half a century to get to this point though.
Anyway i just wanted to say that the US airforce is full of moronic israelites (F35) and that anything they make is dogshit now.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk, buy my mixtape.
A-10 has the lowest cost per flight hour of any currently operated manned aircraft in the USAF
What does it offer over unmanned?
The army wants planes with pilots, not unmanned drones.
The army doesn't use attack planes
The problem is that the A-10 has been out of production for decades and they've already run out of spare parts, so the USAF has to cannibalize older A-10s to keep the rest of the fleet operational. It's already in the maintenance death spiral, and even if Congress wants to keep it alive for its meme value, they're not going to shell out the cost to reactivate the assembly line.
Helmetard, how ya been?