They are making a huge mistake retiring the a10. You need something that can mow down light armored vehicles, infantry formations, and take a lot of damage.
A f35 with a pea shooter won't cut it.
They are making a huge mistake retiring the a10.
They are making a huge mistake retiring the a10. You need something that can mow down light armored vehicles, infantry formations, and take a lot of damage.
A f35 with a pea shooter won't cut it.
Fuck off with your slide thread
nice bearcat
>reeeee
>pay attention to my 6,000,000th slav civil war thread
Don't care. Slavs are literally not my problem.
>You need something that can mow down light armored vehicles, infantry formations, and take a lot of damage.
I agree, none of which the A-10 can do.
It's to cheap to operate and maintain and people like it too much.
The senile old Wild Weasel prunes in the AF resent both of those things since kt makes it harder for them to beg for budget money and they can't be snooty technogays and pretend they're smarter than everyone else
Lol
LMAO it is the cheapest and most reliable jet airframe in service other than the Realer drones
>F-16 has comparable operational costs and cheaper maintence costs
Not even close
Never been taken down with one yet
Lmao you are delusional you don't even know what CAS is or what the A-10 carries
>Cost / flight hour
A-10 : 22,531
F-16 : 26,927
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23299563/gao-23-106217-1.pdf
I look forward to you replying with a source to back your claims and not just crying and shitting up the thread because yu were talking out of your ass.
>I look forward to you replying with a source to back your claims and not just crying and shitting up the thread because yu were talking out of your ass.
lololo you should read your sources all the way through first. Sorry this took so long, I had to finish a game of solitaire Thanks for finding the right report for me tho that saved 5 minutes at least
...
You linked an image that displays exactly what I said. What is your brain damage?
>lololo you should read your sources all the way through first.
peak irony
Yeah cuz what you said was cherrypicked nonsense. the A10 has 4x as many flying hours on 1/3 the number of active airframes as the F-16, that's why the guard and reserve number are so much lower. If it flew the same number of times as the F-16, the graph would match the same pattern, only halfway down
This is the opposite of reality. Still waiting for you to link anything that backs what you say. I provided evidence directly from the government. You have unsourced claims. Fuck off and die mad.
OK, if you won't believe the actual source you provided in the first place, here is a professional publication to do it for.
https://en.defence-ua.com/news/what_is_the_price_of_a_10_fighter_or_black_hawk_helicopter_flying_an_hour_modern_costs_for_us_aviation-4898.html
Now you can go back to being wrong which I suspect you knew all along
>the A-10 Thunderbolt attack jet, which costs $22,531 per flight hour. Next, at approximately the same level, we can find the F-16 Fighting Falcon with a price tag of $26,927 per hour
arent these the exact numbers he said?
It can carry Mavericks and JDAMs, its only missing out on the Paveways.
>Never been taken down with one yet
Good argument bro.
It is because it is accurate.
>Never been taken down with one yet
3 during the Gulf War with many more severely damaged. Another during the Iraq War with again many more severely damaged.
Are you just making shit up or where are you getting this bad info from?
He's a husk unfortunately possessed by the eternally incorrect spirit of Pierre Sprey.
>severely damaged
>not destroyed/killed
This is the same shit we laugh at the russians for, be better anon
Go back to your containment threads.
>It's to cheap to operate
Only compared to other high performance aircraft, and it's very bad at the jobs they can do. Compared to other COIN aircraft, like the prop plane replacing it, it has a short loiter time and costs over 10 times as much per flight hour to maintain.
>none of which the A-10 can do
Correct and truth pilled.
I don't get warthog shills, I really don't
The A-10 can take a lot of punishment though and carry a lot of payload, I agree with OP that retiring it is a little too much
>The A-10 can take a lot of punishment tho-
No it fucking cannot. Literally the only armored part is the cockpit and not even that much to save weight. There is a reason the damn thing is only used in airspaces that are under friendly control where there is no anti air guns or surface to air launchers.
The entire reason A-10 ever entered service was military corruption. During the testing it has squarely failed its one and only job and did so in every possible respect. It was seriously obsolete before it ever took flight. It was absurdly more expensive to operate than other types of CAS at the time, and still is. And yet they adopted it anyway. And then morons like you cheered for it because making a lot of noise like a gay is more important than being effective and efficient in combat.
you can buy an olympic sized swimming pool of 30mm depleted uranium rounds for the cost of one laser guided munition
to win a land war in asia you need a way to kill people cheaply, the nazis found that out the hard way
You didn't answer my question. Try again.
>You didn't answer my question. Try again.
im done here go watch star trek and fuck your son like everyone else at the FBI
>im done here go watch star trek and fuck your son like everyone else at the FBI
This is a thing?
Itty bitty baby! Itty bitty boat!
>you can buy an olympic sized swimming pool of 30mm depleted uranium rounds for the cost of one laser guided munition
One laser guided munition can do more to win a war than your Olympic pool fart cannon.
>to win a land war in asia
Nice, now you're gonna fly A-10s above the fucking South China Sea, that's just great.
>you can buy an olympic sized swimming pool of 30mm depleted uranium rounds for the cost of one laser guided munition
Which do you think is the biggest logistical strain?
Per neutralized enemy? Take a guess, dumbass.
>to win a land war in asia you need a way to kill people cheaply, the nazis found that out the hard way
>smashes Hispanicy rocks together and incinerates 90,000 Japs in an instant
Amateurs lol
>the nazis found that out the hard way
the germans found out the hard way that if the clueless burgers decide to start spamming their factories behind the saftey of their oceans there really is realistic way of countering them. On their own asiatic horde meat is toothless if you cant properly supply, wheel and equip them
where the fuck are anglos making nearly ten thousand aircrafts??
In every single automotive factory, every factory you can think of. The entire US industrial sector was re-tooled to make shit for the war effort on a scale people alive now have never seen. Every company from the International tractor company to Singer sewing machines were making guns, every car company was spitting out tanks and planes faster than the paint could be mixed for them. Production rates for the P51 mustang reached over 100 per month sometime in early 1942, and towards the end of the war around 20 of them rolled off the production lines completely built, every single day. What was sent to the UK and the USSR was chump change compared to what the US was making, but that chump change allowed the soviets to build almost all of their armor, feed their armies, fly sorties, and transport logistics across all of the soviet union.
>you can buy an olympic sized swimming pool of 30mm depleted uranium rounds for the cost of one laser guided munition
And it will be less likely to actually kill the target.
>to win a land war in asia you need a way to kill people cheaply
And PGMs are the singular most cost-effective type of munition in existence for doing exactly that with aircraft, the USAF found that out the hard way all the way back in Vietnam.
>PGM's
On infantry.
That will be 750k. Plus tip.
>On infantry
Infantry can't fight if you prevent them from arriving or being supplied.
Over 800 raids and no joy.
Three raids with laser and TV guided bombs and the bridge got taken out for good.
>run through the jungle
What now?
Put loudspeakers on Apaches and got to town
I truely hope one day they deploy the entire A10 fleet to Asia in a war. So in 24hr after every single one is shot down we never have to hear about the stupid plane again.
It may be cheaper but doesn't mean it would be easier and it's better to kill your target with one certain shot than trying to score a hit with a rain of bullets, if those bullets were somehow guided then maybe they would be worth it a try.
>The entire reason A-10 ever entered service was military corruption. During the testing it has squarely failed its one and only job and did so in every possible respect. It was seriously obsolete before it ever took flight. It was absurdly more expensive to operate than other types of CAS at the time, and still is. And yet they adopted it anyway. And then morons like you cheered for it because making a lot of noise like a gay is more important than being effective and efficient in combat.
The A-10 made sense in the 1970s when air coverage wasn't so thick and many adversary were literally using WW2 era Bofors 40mm AA guns. But now that basically every dipshit nation has MANPAD the A-10 needs to go out of service. The future is disposable drones crashing into shit, the Super Tucano is sufficient for the CAS duty now, is cheaper and flies at an appropriate speed for the job, not to mention orbiting and firing from the side like the Spectre is how cannons should be employed rather than bore sighted strafing like the A-10.
>when air coverage wasn't so thick and the A-10 isn't used in contested airspace. That's not what it is for.
>every dipshit nation has MANPAD
Go ahead and list all the MANPAD A-10 kills to date
A-10 does not have Radar
>The A-10 made sense in the 1970s when
NATO needed piles of cheap disposable bomb trucks to break the expected Soviet tank horde
The A-10 avoided the MANPAD threat by NOT operating as it was designed, ie by lobbing Mavericks from medium altitude instead of strafing with guns and cluster at low altitude
That's not a brilliant advertisement for the A-10 concept of operations, my friend
Sure and they never should have retired the 1911 or swapped cannons for himars either. Also the M14 was the best rifle ever because we could shoot their ammo but they couldn't shoot ours
nice survivorship bias in pic
What can an A-10 do that another plane can't do just as good if not better? Before you even start to go there: the F-16 has comparable operational costs and cheaper maintence costs and that will only tip further that way with time.
If they are In range of your 30mm gun, that means you are in range of their 30mm gun.
I think the A-10 is kind of a cautionary tale of trying to apply 'lessons' from conflicts that don't actually represent the main threat.
Because the skyraider did well in Vietnam, they tried to make a skyraider for the fulda gap, but that was obviously not a great idea.
>If they are In range of your 30mm gun, that means you are in range of their 30mm gun.
Yeah maybe if you're flying lower than what you're shooting at.
How do you fly lower than the ground?
How *does* one fly below the ground? Truly curious.
That's cool.
Defeats the purpose of the A-10, though.
They dont fly alone. Anyone who has been on the ground when that cannon is going is either cheering or running for their lives. Nobody is "aiming their manpad".
fuck off pierre we're not buying Rafales
It's the return of the A-10, oh wait, you're kidding
He didn't just say what I think he did, did he?
And Pierre Sprey said
Nothing, you idiots, Pierre Sprey's dead, he's locked in my basement (Ha-ha!)
Have you missed the whole war going on showing you what happens when you fly low over a battlefield saturated with AA?
Long range artillery and rockets are now precise, faster, cheaper and safer. You can pretty much hit anything 499km around you.
>Have you missed the whole war going on showing you what happens when you fly low over a battlefield saturated with AA?
the a10 is for killing massive amounts of chinamen over a huge geographic area
surgical strikes needed for something like ukraine is best left for f35/f22/b2/etc
>the a10 is for killing massive amounts of chinamen over a huge geographic area
>CAS
>over a huge geographical area
Oh shit, he's just retarded. I get it now
>Oh shit, he's just retarded. I get it now
we get it you hate mommy
hurry star trek just started a few minutes ago... what crazy adventures will captain picard get into this time!
fuck off retard
you are a retard
>499km
Ah, yes, the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) has a max range of 499km because of the treaty on long range ballistic missiles that applies over 500km. It totally can’t go further than 499km, *wink wink*
Try using it in symmetrical war without having absolute air superiority
>Try using it in symmetrical war without having absolute air superiority
land war in asia
asia
not vietnam, ukraine, or iraq
asia
the entire continent of asia
you will be bankrupt in a week trying to kill 5 billion chinamen with JDAMs
You don't kill 5 billion by shooting them, you kill them by destroying their critical infrastructure and blockading them
I want to see the Chinese revert to cannibalism in my lifetime
But what if?
>muh infantry
anything can kill infantry in big numbers you retard
but it's not definitely A10 that can be shot down with a cheap MANPAD
They can all be shot down with cheap MANPADs and other means.
So, like many other assets, the A-10 is best used when we have air superiority.
A MANPAD doesn’t require air superiority to use retard
Yes because that was done soo many times during the a10s service life
The concept became obsolete the minute it entered service. The existence of MANPADs invalidates the whole thing. That being said, I love flying the hog in DCS so at least something good came of it.
The USAF should have killed the A-10 years ago by renaming the F-16 to the A-16.
Congress caught up to that trick and pretty much came up with the stipulation that the A-10 could only be replaced by another dedicated CAS/Interdiction jet.
Since the 1970s that nobody has been designing any of those shits, it's obvious that Congress set up the A-10 to remain in service until it just died from lack of parts.
A P-3 can fly faster, fly further, loiter longer, carry 25% payload, doesn't need to waste pylons/payload on a targetting pod, and just generally better avionics.
That's right, a fucking maratime patrol plane is better at CAS than an A-10 for literally anything other than gun runs. So you need to demonstrate that the gun run is of such importance that its worth sacrificing nearly everything else on the altar of it.
The a-10 is shit and it uses missiles most of the time anyways. Its a meme plane that is somehow worse than the tucano.
A-10s are simply too old at this point, they're getting worn out. I agree that they're awesome, and that the F-35 is gay as fuck, but the A-10 is simply at the end of it's lifespan. They would either need to overhaul the entire fleet soon(which the government won't do), or come up with a modernized variant (also extremely unlikely, the F-35 grift is just too good). God bless the Warthog, but it's unfortunately time. The Cold War era was just 1000% more aesthetic and effective than "lol we made this univesral jet that does everything for 1000000 billion dollars+tip"
The entire reason for the F-35 costing so much and being delayed about a decade is the B variant, which certain foreign buyers (Japs, Brits) insisted on alongside the USMC.
That's not true, though.
The B variant is the original. The USMC needed a Harrier replacement. The Pentagon came up with the CALF, a program to cut costs by developing the Harrier replacement and then the USAF would buy a conventional take off and landing variant to help bring unit cost down.
Then the Navy joined the program and it became the JSF.
It wasn't insistence from the USMC and partner nations, the B variant was the OG and the A and C were piggybacking off the initial investment.
Lockheed mismanagement and concurrency increased costs. But in the end concurrency paid off because so far a hundred or so F-35s of an early production batch were upgraded to Block 3. Back in the good old days, those airframes would have been given to the ANG or sold for cheap to allied nations. Like the first F-15As which only served for about 5 years and had to be handed out to the ANG so the USAF could replace them with F-15Cs.
>the A-10 is simply at the end of it's lifespan.
This. They are either going to retire them while some are still flyable, or the AF is going to see an increasing volume of structural incidents.
Sprey sprey , go away, go play another sax riff for Kanye
Fuck off Pieraboo. He was wrong back then and he's still wrong now. And dead, unlike you unfortunately.
The A10 is literally useless
Its just cool looking and thats it
Su 25 should be adopted by NATO ASAP by your logic
Yes, it should.
SU-25 is infinitely superior just because it doesn't have an idiotic oversized gatling gun in it.
Instead it has three smaller guns?
This is why you just lobbed PGM's at your targets but for some reason they decided to retire the F-111
VS wing = maintenance nightmare
A10 is junk just like OP
I understand the reasons for why A-10 makes no sense:
> to costly to operate for CAS missions which are very frequent and sudden
> widespread MANPADs are a serious danger for low-flying aircraft
But can someone explain why combat helicopters are not obsolete for the same reasons?? Rotary wing aircraft even more costly to operate compared to fixed wing and the same reasons for why A-10 make no sense today also apply to combat helos.
Well, if you have something like an Apache with the Longbow radar on the rotor mast you can actually do this cool thing where you keep your airframe terrain-masked and shoot missiles over the obstacle while commanding the missile to target stuff that can't see you or shoot back. The Kiowa also had a recon pod on top of the mast.
The A-10 is redundant because in low level flight it can't see the target while terrain masking, and trying to release payload through high altitude flying or by toss bombing/JDAM can be acomplished by other fixed wing assets.
A helicopter has the benefit of hiding behind terrain and only exposing it sensor mast.
Rotary wing fly very low, which means they can hide behind cover. They also are moving towards more of an indirect fire role in the sensor shooter system where they don't ever see the target, just fly close enough to launch some guided A2G missiles at targets that other people have found, and then return to base to rearm and do it again. This allows them to serve a unique role as a fast reaction weapon system that can move fast quantities of armament since they can be re-armed and refueled at a FOB or other nearby location. The A-10 just does what any other plane does, drop PGMs from altitude, or makes a suicidal low altitude pass to try and use it's gun while praying the bad guys don't have as much as a Stinger or AAA of their own.
>moving towards more of an indirect fire role
already there ever since the Hellfire + Longbow combination
Yea, I guess a more precise phrasing would be moving towards exclusively an indirect fire role but they've kept the chin gun on so far despite it being weight that could be missiles, and I don't think even the laser guided Hydras can be used in an indirect manner though I could be wrong.
AH-64E will be the new A-10, but even better
Not only will it be the primary deliverer of CAS using Hellfires and APKWS, it will also provide ISR and even AA warning by tying into friendly SAM networks
It will accomplish this by being a drone mothership, using its drones to extend its sensor reach significantly and yes, indirectly
>You need something that can mow down light armored vehicles, infantry formations, and take a lot of damage.
F-35 with a cluster bomb.
Why survive a lot of damage when you can simply not take damage at all?
Disappointment he didn't get a chance to comment on Ukraine.
He's actually been proven right on everything.
Pierre Sprey has never been right once in his life. I’m glad the old bastard is burning in hell
>the high tech weapons have been destroyed
>pulling out older shit
>air power is meaningless
Try not to drown on your own drool you fucktard.
>literally none of that is true
Unless you’re talking about the Russians and ignoring the first months of the war when Bayraktars raped Ruskies
>PrepHoleope
>RUSSIANS PULLING T64'S OUT OF STORAGE LAMO!
>next fucking day
>but that isn't true
Make up your mind on what narrative you want to run with.
GET THE FUCK IN THE BLITZFIGHTER SHINJI
Do you think the reformers were plants to absolutely fuck with the brains out of soviet aerospace with their bullshit?
>two 3rd world countries with incompetent shit low tech air forces can't achieve air superiority
>that means high tech weapons and air power are useless
you are seriously fucking stupid
I'm not disagreeing with anything you are saying but it bugs me you are using "3rd world" for what are textbook 2nd world nations.
2nd world no longer exist since USSR fell if you want to get pedantic, and the modern definition is about wealth anyway since it turns out that all the 1st world nations turned out to be doing things pretty well while the 3rd world remains a shithole
>2nd world no longer exist since USSR fell
I get why people say this but its clear the 2nd world still exists, even if it went into remission for awhile. Its not specifically about the USSR. We very clearly have nations that are arranging themselves as a counterpoint to NATO/"the West." I mean, the whole pretext about Russia going into Ukraine was about not letting someone that close (geographically, economically, culturally, historically, whatever) switch over to the 1st world/EU/NATO.
Except, as the joke goes about BRICS, all of them fucking hate each other as much, if not more, then the West. There is no second world because you have a bunch of countries who all are opposed to US hegmony but they're not united in even a lose sense like the USSR was so there's no world.
>Except, as the joke goes about BRICS
I didn't mean BRICS. Was thinking more Iran, Russia/Belarus, China, and DPRK Might want to include ones like Cuba or Mali and such too but those are clearly minor partners.
>There is no second world because you have a bunch of countries who all are opposed to US hegmony but they're not united in even a lose sense like the USSR was so there's no world.
We disagree
Alright, let's look at your example nations. Belarus is doing it's best to get everyone to forget them while Russia is in the process of committing suicide, Iran is selling arms to Russia and working with them to an extent in Syria but is a pretty clear case of common enemy rather then actual aid, North Korea has it's nuclear deterrence pointed at China just as much if not more then South Korea, and China is so economically intertwined with the West that they're not even openly flaunting sanctions on Russia to sell them weapons.
Would you have called India a 2nd world nation during the Cold War just because they didn't like the West?
nta but this is all cope and bullshit
Strong argument, champ.
India were 3rd world, as they were one of the non-aligned nations, no?
Correct, which is the point anon was making. There's no unified anti-West coalition to make up the 2nd world these days, just a bunch of random countries that don't even have the veneer of working together like the USSR did.
>There's no unified anti-West coalition to make up the 2nd world these days
Just because there isn't a integrated Warsaw Pact now (which was actually more or less one country, one military by the way) doesn't mean there isn't a loose coalition of states bent on styming the Western Alliance politically, economically and militarily wherever possible
we're in a Second Cold War now, anon, it's foolish to pretend otherwise, and it's murkier than the first
Define your countries that are nominally allied to each other and wouldn't happily stab each other in the back for a quarter, anon. We just saw Russia's NATO knockoff be proven to be completely teethless with the Azerbaijahn (sp) bullshit where they sent their hopes and prayers while their peacekeepers just stepped aside.
There is literally nothing anyone can say to you that would convince you of anything other than what you have your heart set on. What possible use is there in trying to have a conversation with you?
Let's set aside the fact that you're posting on PrepHole which is already a waste of time, arguing is fun, and that having to formulate your thoughts in a debate can help crystalize your own thoughts. What possible harm is there in having a conversation about a nebulous definition of a defunct term?
My thesis is that a 2nd world requires a reasonably united group of countries that are opposed to the West, since that is what the communist countries were in the original definition, whereas you seem to have forgotten that beyond all the USSR memberstates, there was also Cuba, China, Vietnam, and so on. They were all also unified by a nominally socialist government and other characteristics and were fairly heavily integrated with each other even if you did have things like the Sino-Soviet split which was akin to the French's dumbass behavior with NATO. There were 3rd world nations that were hostile to the West, such as India and a host of South American countries that weren't part of the 2nd world.
You could make a better argument for all the Islamic nations being a 2nd world of the modern globe, except the majority of them aren't at odds with the West beyond having ongoing homegrown terrorist issues, since they share a large number of elements and are all largely friendly with each other, other then the Shiite/Suuni split. A bunch of unaligned nations that all dislike the US run status quo of the moment doesn't make a 2nd world, since there is no nominal alliance nor could a person living in one of those countries have a large collection of shared experiences with someone living in the others beyond general dictatorship.
>Let's set aside the fact that you're posting on PrepHole which is already a waste of time
Bad faith engagement, opinion discarded
Thank you for IMMEDIATELY proving my point.
>unironically believing PrepHole is srs bznz
>you seem to have forgotten
Didn't forget, I figured the Warsaw Pact alone was enough of a hurdle without bringing in the Asians
> A bunch of unaligned nations that all dislike the US run status quo of the moment doesn't make a 2nd world
Does if they consistently make decisions that go against Western interests
>since there is no nominal alliance
Like I said, things are murkier now, there can be informal alliances
>nor could a person living in one of those countries have a large collection of shared experiences with someone living in the others beyond general dictatorship
Firstly, they don't need to, Rajeesh and Chang both actively hate the West and take actions counter to Western interests, as any regular user of PrepHole would know, and that despite themselves squabbling over territory; secondly, globalisation, cheap travel and the Internet has made it much much easier for geographically distant strangers (like you and me) to participate in a shared experience in which to create and build an anti-West culture
>Does if they consistently make decisions that go against Western interests
Except they aren't unified in making anti-West decisions. That is the crux of the first and 2nd world definitions, in that you had huge blocks that would largely move together even if you had China, France, and so on that would do their own thing to an extent. There is none of that with any of the countries that form your Axis of Evil, as very well demonstrated by how everyone is standing to the side and watching Russia commit suicide by police while picking their pockets.
>Like I said, things are murkier now, there can be informal alliances
Your entire argument being pinned on there being a shadowy hegemon of backroom deals that are completely unprovable isn't a strong counterthesis
>Firstly, they don't need to, Rajeesh and Chang both actively hate the West and take actions counter to Western interests
Except they hate each other as much, if not more, since Rajeesh and Chang are still sending troops up to the border with melee weapons to beat the shit out of each other. The Indian government has made some very pro-Western moves as a fuck you to China as a result of this, which runs counter to your definition undermining the West being the big defining characteristic.
>participate in a shared experience in which to create and build an anti-West culture
Just hating the West isn't good enough to define a 2nd world, since there was plenty of West hating nations back then that were 3rd world nations. The level of shared experience is also far below what a citizen of any Communist country would have shared with any other. They don't get exposed to the same media due to the lack of government control on the internet compared to traditional media, don't experience the same daily difficulties as a result of a command economy, they aren't all at a similar level of wealth (or lackthereof), and so on.
India has been most active in spreading Russian disinfo, and in fact helped fund the Russian war effort by trading oil in rupees until the Russians themselves broke off that idea (because even Russia wasn't desperate enough to buy pajeet goods). China is, obviously, anti-West, they just decided Ukraine wasn't the hill they were going to die on. They're also turning a blind eye to the Russia-Best Korea tentative trade deal, tacitly allowing it. Norks don't do shit without consulting their sponsor.
>the high tech weapons have been destroyed
High tech has proven to be viable in crew survivability and also combat efficiency
>pulling out older shit
Because Russia is unable to produce high tech shit. They wouldn't have pulled those museum pieces if they have a functional MIC
>air power is meaningless
The russian air force is the most neglected branch of the russian military along with its navy. Ukraine's air force is very minimal and underfunded due to them being a POOR COUNTRY. Sprey has been proven wrong in every eay possible.
Minor correction
>The russian air force is the most neglected branch of the russian military along with its navy.
Its the surface fleet that has been neglected of late. The sub force still seems fairly formidable (though rapidly aging out).
>Reznikov gave his latest comments about the need for Western combat jets like the F-16, and the unsuitability of the A-10 to meet the country's requirements
Ukraine specifically does not want A10s and wants F16. Get fucked
If it's so useless why are the Russians using its counterpart in Ukraine so much?
Because
1) It's faster
2) They have it
Reminder that they're mostly restricted to lobbing rockets in ballistic arcs rather than unleashing Total Infantry Death with guided missiles and 30mm cannons.
>using russians as an example
I imagine when Rudel was helping design the A-10 he was thinking about his success with low flying dive attacks over the steppe or ocean
He didn't even help, he was just a way to try and peddle the A-10 to the West German government.
f35 good a10 bad
retard
Armored planes are not a thing. A-10 and Su-25 can take a bit more damage, but you can't rely on them or on any plane to consistently take hits. That's just not how it works in air combat. Even back in the Desert Storm, F-111 destroyed the most tanks with guided bombs while A-10 was the most clapped plane without any special advantage to show for it. By now, they're completely obsoleted by drones at the lower end and by multi-role fighters at the higher end.
There is also a thinking that CAS needs the plane to be very close to the fight, when really it means blowing shit up close to friendlies. These days a drone, or pretty much any combat plane can do this fine. The comms and sensors got fuckton better since 1970s. The pilot can get the instruction from the ground straight to his cockpit and he can watch the area with infrared, all while staying outside MANPAD range.
>A f35 with a pea shooter
The A model has a 25mm gun, but again, it's basically not something to use, ever. Even the softest target can put a MANPAD missile up your ass if you approach for guns. Just not worth the risk.
>There is also a thinking that CAS needs the plane to be very close to the fight, when really it means blowing shit up close to friendlies.
PrepHole really needs to get this very simple concept ingrained into its thick skull. I'm going to assume that every poster that makes this mistake is an ESL third world retard from now on.
>attack helicopters
>IFV
>light tanks
>cluster municians
>artillery
>rocket artillery
>fighter jets
>UAV's
I've just named a bunch of things that does the job the A-10 is supposed to do but better without getting shot out of the sky. UAV's come in different shapes, but there's bomber style mid sized ones and predator ones, and they are all about stalking small formations and vehicles.
Depleted Uranium is fantastic and should be used, but on vehciles it makes sense.
>the A-10 is supposed to do but better without getting shot out of the sky
lets add up how many have been shot down with how many sorties its flown, shall we
>plane go boomie: 7
>haha plane go brrrrrrrrrrrt: 45,000
Context context context context context
>Gulf War and Balkans
>Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and recent deployments
Notice a theme? A-10's are being used after weeks of SEAD or against forces that have piss poor or no air defense. It'd be useless in a hot war against any major powers or in a conflict like Ukraine. Yes, Russian air defenses would love to shoot shit like the A-10 out of the sky.
And... it's a plane that does what an attack helicopter does? But an attack Heli and increasingly UAV does everything it does but better.
>Context context context context context
yeah the context is A-10s being used successfully tens of thousands of times extremely cost effectively. We know what theyre good and what theyre not good at
> attack helicopter
lol
>good at: giving the grunts a boner
>bad at: actually killing anything
Grunts got support from an F-18 and thought it was an A-10, so they can't even tell the difference.
>yeah the context is A-10s being used successfully tens of thousands of times extremely cost effectively. We know what theyre good and what theyre not good at
They’re good at killing friendlies and getting shot down. Cost means nothing. We’re America. We can print a trillion dollars tomorrow for whatever the fuck we want.
It was huge mistake to even create this floating dumpster in the first place
Pull the GAU off the A-10's and pod them up to sit under a wing on an AT802
its got almost the same fucking gun as the A-10, only modernized.
In the gulf war the A-10 killed basically everything with mavericks. The gun is useless. The F-35 would be just fine and is more survivable.
did everyone in this thread forget that WMD exist??
>A f35 with a pea shooter won't cut it.
you clearly dont know what your on about
It was build to protect our borders from invasion
>But they changed the rules
Bischvetz? More like Bitchkvetch (FAG/GOT)
Airplane cannons are a meme. The USAF should go back to .50 caliber for airplanes. Anything above is unncessary.
>look at this A-10 it's got some shrapnel damage and still landed it's so strong!!!!
You think thats impressive?
>pic
lmao of course it was the fucking israelis
>If you eject and the plane crashes it is coming out of your paycheck Moshe!
Standoff bomblet dispensers, the things that will come out in a real war, are much better at these jobs than the A-10. The one thing it does is COIN and they've been trying to buy better COIN aircraft since long before you decided that defending the A-10 was your online personality
Prop planes fill the extended loitering time requirement at trivial compromise in speed and ordinance. Look at Ukraine -- if SEAD & feed doesn't stick, it's going to be a hanger pony.
>something that can mow down light armored vehicles, infantry formations
That's what cluster munitions are for
The A-10 does not have a Radar.
You know what can do that infinitely bettter than a10? A BOMB
Is there anything more reddit than the fucking A-10 fawning? I'm convinced it's the same people who went on and on about Pluto being a planet, and fucking Keanu Reeves being wholesome.
Read the comments. Come back here and re-read the comments.
>it can't
There are instances of them being full of holes and still being able to return to base, it can take more damage than other aircraft, sure it's way better to not being hit in the first place but being able to survive a hit or two is valuable.
>being severely damaged, failing to complete the mission, and being out of service for months is a win
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the pilots get to survive, but how about we instead design a platform that doesn't have to get its tail blown off every other sortie?
And there are examples of the F-15 returning to base minus a fucking wing, posted in this thread even. Acting as though the A-10 is unique in it's ability to sometimes shrug off a whole lot of damage into bursting into treats is retarded.
I like how the American public is so dumb that the congress has to force the USAF to keep flying with these trash heaps because loud noises entertain the public.
A-10 is too easy to shoot down from what I've heard.
You can buy like thousands of suicide drones for the annual cost of operating an A-10. And then, come wartime you can deploy them as a swarm from a more modern aircraft and blow up the convoy of Toyotas. I realize brrrrrt is good for morale but perhaps watching a skydarkening swarm of drones do the same job will be fine too and be more cost effective.
Isn't the GAU-8 overkill for the job it is actually doing?
They should remove the GAU-8 and replace it with a M61 Vulcan, and then load it with 2000 20mm rounds.
If you mean going after light trucks and an occasional BMP, sure maybe. If you mean, MBTs, it's worthless and that job is just given to missiles on the A-10 if they actually do it.
They didn't select 25mm for the F35 for nothing.
>You need something that can mow down light armored vehicles
British LAV's you mean