[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/k/ - Weapons



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



>Let's have a competition between the A-10 and F-35 to see which is better at CAS

BUT TO MAKE IT FAIR....

1. Simulated enemies are placed in open desert and made highly visible because otherwise it would be too hard for the F-35 to see them

2. The A-10 is only allowed to carry 1/3 of a full load of GAU-8 ammunition, otherwise it would be unfair

3. Flying times will be severely limited during each sortie because otherwise it would be unfair because the A-10 can loiter way longer than the F-35

4. Number of sorties flown each day will be limited because it's unfair that the A-10 can fly more sorties a day than the F-35

5. We can only fly during perfect weather because the F-35 can't handle other weather

6. We will only do 4 total days of flying and draw all our results from them

And lastly,

7. The tests will be created and operated by F-35 contractors who have a massive investment in seeing the F-35 succeed and the A-10 get replaced

8. The tests will receive no input from A-10 pilots, JTAC's, the Army, or the Marines. Only F-35 contractors are allowed to have input!

.... There, totally fair!
>>
Don't forget.
9. We will only fly where there is no A2A or AA threat because the A-10 is a relic unable to survive in the modern non-COIN airspace
>>
>>38533247
>yet another "The Fulda Gap mixed with Desert Storm is the only relevant CAS scenario, Mavericks and LGBs don't exist, retard huge autocannons are the only weapons that exist, and literally every Russian and Chinese SAM made since 1991 doesn't exist" thread
The A-10 is aging and it's relevance is in question when faced with a modern, Asian threat. Get over it.
>>
>>38533290
>>38533309
>Lockheed Martin has deposited $0.02 into your bank account.
>>
>>38533330
Please do tell us the modern upgrades that have been done to keep the A10 at pace with ground to air threats. I'll wait
>>
>>38533290
This, it's giant wank when the A10 was pulled off the front lines during the Gulf War. People always talk about German super weapons that wasted resources, well ours is an ancient, slow plane that has its electronics outclassed by the missiles it was carrying. It's a meme.
>>
Just buy the fucking Tucano already jesus
>>
>>38533247
> Simulated enemies are placed in open desert and made highly visible because otherwise it would be too hard for the F-35 to see them
I wasn't aware you could hide in the dessert
>The A-10 is only allowed to carry 1/3 of a full load of GAU-8 ammunition, otherwise it would be unfair
So just like irl where they do this all the time otherwise they would have no endurance
>Number of sorties flown each day will be limited because it's unfair that the A-10 can fly more sorties a day than the F-35
sounds like a testing limitation
>We can only fly during perfect weather because the F-35 can't handle other weather
sounds like a continuation of the can't fly in the rain myth propagated by the Russian media circa 2014
>We will only do 4 total days of flying and draw all our results from them
what you want 2 months?
>The tests will be created and operated by F-35 contractors who have a massive investment in seeing the F-35 succeed and the A-10 get replaced
not anyone's fault that fairchild went out of business 15 years ago but fairchild

Seems like the reformist yelowtaildefense furfags are at it again
>>
>>38533378
Better yet, just use the F-35s we already paid for. Either way, get rid of this thing.
>>
>>38533378
>Just buy the fucking Tucano already jesus

the one that crashed and killed its pilot last week?
>>
>>38533247
>POGO
>>
>>38533392
>I wasn't aware you could hide in the dessert

Why was the test only done in a desert? Why not test in woodlands/forests/grasslands as well?

And yes, you can take measures to conceal yourself in a desert. Hiding in foxholes with netted camo, for instance, which is what is a common tactic employed by militaries.
>>
>>38533330
Lockheed Martin doesn't play the pennies game. They operate in the billions and it comes from the tax payer's pocket
>>
File: hqdefault.jpg (19 KB, 480x360)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>38533330
A-10 got completely BTFO when it first ran into air defense that wasn't depleted when it comes to ammunition in 1991. They lost 4 planes in matter of minutes over Iraqi republican guards and all CAS missions after that were carried out by F-111's and F-16's. F-111's destroyed more Iraqi armor than A-10's.
>>
>>38533392
you literally dodged every point made and diverted to totally irrelevant things
>>
>>38533247
>Simulated enemies are placed in open desert and made highly visible because otherwise it would be too hard for the F-35 to see them

You mean otherwise it would be too hard for the A-10 to see them.
>>
>>38533247
>9. The A-10 be pulled from the test after the first day and replaced with F-16s and F-111s to simulate how useless it is in an environment with AA
Face it, the BRRRRRRRRT meme died a long long time ago.
>>
>>38533434
>And yes, you can take measures to conceal yourself in a desert. Hiding in foxholes with netted camo, for instance, which is what is a common tactic employed by militaries.
none of which will help you against synthetic aperture radar and thermal imaging of the eots
>Why was the test only done in a desert? Why not test in woodlands/forests/grasslands as well?
because thats the test range they have and where most of our training for future conflict is geared for, and most recent experience has been drawn from?
>>38533455
quantify
>>
>>38533439
>air defense that wasn't depleted when it comes to ammunition in 1991
The air defenses were as fucked as you could realistically expect them to be and they still suffered unacceptable losses. The upper level air defenses had been effectively dismantled, and the only real defenses were whatever low-level assets they had distributed with the routing column.
>>
>>38533434
>why wasn't testing done in places the F-35 would have an unfair advantage due to it's superior sensors
>>
File: 1402428087824.jpg (1.16 MB, 5000x5000)
1.16 MB
1.16 MB JPG
>>38533392
>I wasn't aware you could hide in the dessert
You absolutely can, and if you think that the enemy will only be fighting on open ground in a desert environment and that CAS will never be used in any other situation then you're wrong.
>So just like irl where they do this all the time otherwise they would have no endurance
Except no plane flies with a full load all the time. It varies, but it's not doctrine to carry 1/3 full anyway so there's room for them to arm up the F-35 in these ""tests"" even more.
>sounds like a continuation of the can't fly in the rain myth propagated by the Russian media circa 2014
Why wouldn't they want to test them in various weather conditions, simulated or not? The F-35 could very well have a problem operating properly during inclement weather conditions.
>what you want 2 months?
4 days of testing is nothing. People taking finals in college are tested longer than these planes.

Your stupid faggot comments are not an argument and your shilling is obvious. Get off my board and never disgrace 4chan ever again or I'll call m00t back here to ban you.
>>
>>38533498
>why don't they control the weather
>>
>>38533401
Imagine being part of a $160 billion branch of a $1.3 trillion defense budget in 2018 to die in a prop plane because people don't want to waste more money than they have to (as if the F35 doesn't exist)
>>
>>38533392
>not anyone's fault that fairchild went out of business 15 years ago but fairchild

Why not involve A-10 pilots, JTAC, and Marines/Army who all have a vested interest in CAS?

For the Marines/Army, having competent CAS is a matter of life-or-death. Shouldn't they be the first to be consulted in this?

Shouldn't the purpose of the test be to push both planes to their limits, put them in as many scenarios as possible, and use that data to determine each planes strengths and weaknesses? Doesn't severely handicapping one plane go against the whole idea of the competition?

Imagine having a free-throw competition between two basketball players to determine who is better at free-throwing. Oh, but one of them will be using bowling balls and will be blindfolded. The whole of determining who is better is now pointless since it's been made unfair.
>>
>>38533524
you'd be surprised how many things/jobs exist because "don't wanna spend more"
>>
File: 4564565.jpg (81 KB, 1000x600)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
>>38533524
Imagine dying in a prop plane because you were not qualified to fly an F-35.
>>
>>38533525
>Why not ask Patton to design a tank?
>>
>>38533435
>0.000000002 million cents has been deposited in your bank account.
>>
>>38533439
>was the first war the A-10's were employed in
>even the generals didn't know how best to use them
>figure out through trial-and-error what A-10's can and can't do

it's not complicated anon. you don't send A-10's a hundred miles behind enemies lines to take out AA.
>>
>>38533525
They should race for speed and distance, and see which one holds more munitions, and which one is harder to target with both IR and radar AA systems.
>>
File: 1399388082154.png (335 KB, 755x658)
335 KB
335 KB PNG
>>38533519
>It's impossible to simulate varying weather conditions in a controlled environment in the 21st century

I'm speaking with literal manchildren. it's not even an argument with how stupid you shills are.
>>
>>38533481
>You mean otherwise it would be too hard for the A-10 to see them.
???

The A-10 can sit there and circle over the area and scan it for the enemy.

The F-35 can't do that.
>>
>>38533434

and how would flying around looking with a Mk 1 eyeball against camoflague which is designed to blend in a wooded environment work more effectively? you do realize that targeting pods are a thing, right?
>>
File: 1424722145724.jpg (719 KB, 1599x1064)
719 KB
719 KB JPG
>>38533247
>Let's have a competition between the A-10 and F-35 to see which is better at CAS
>wait why is the A-10 being used like it actually does instead of how it is in my fantasies
>>
>>38533568
>why don't they just make it rain in the middle of the fucking desert


>>38533578
Yes it can anon. It also has something A-10 pilots have probably never heard of, it's a brand new development. We call it Radio Detection And Ranging.
>>
>>38533568
>controlled enviroment
Okay, cool, how are you gonna simulate a rainstorm on a clear day in the desert?
>>
>>38533565
>only useful in a turkey shoot
>combined arms is scary
>>
>>38533525

what does a JTAC bring to the table, the ability to read you a 9-line or do a lo-fi talk on? how is that relevant?

sidebar: i've killed a tank from a fast mover in a big TIC. no A-10s in theater.
>>
>replace the A-10 with the A-29 for COIN
>replace the A-10 with the F-35 for near-peer conflict
DoD hire me
>>
>>38533594
>fighters can take out AA but can't do CAS
>A-10's can do CAS but can't take out AA

you use them both.
>>
File: IAF_F-35.jpg (364 KB, 950x632)
364 KB
364 KB JPG
>>38533498
>You absolutely can, and if you think that the enemy will only be fighting on open ground in a desert environment and that CAS will never be used in any other situation then you're wrong.
please quantify your master plan to hide from modern sensor equipment in the middle of a dessert and I will tell you how even with the tech of 1991 it wouldn't matter
>it's not doctrine to carry 1/3 full
it is doctrine a-10's have not flown with full ammunition load since the cold war
>Why wouldn't they want to test them in various weather conditions, simulated or not? The F-35 could very well have a problem operating properly during inclement weather conditions.
all aircraft have problems with weather they don't want it messing with their numbers and data they want clean numbers there is no way to quantify a good comparison if you have aircraft experiencing better or worse conditions depending on the time they flew.
>4 days of testing is nothing. People taking finals in college are tested longer than these planes.
like I said how much time do you want, how much money do you want to spend proving your planefu is statistically garbage that hasn't been shown in hundreds of tests over the past few decades
>>38533525
>Why not involve A-10 pilots, JTAC, and Marines/Army who all have a vested interest in CAS?
the test is to gather hard data the airforce doesn't care what flashing lights and big sounds impresses the crayon and paste eaters, and input from a-10 pilots is unnecessary unless they have serious glitches in the testing schedule they have already had decades of testing.
>>
File: 1452434178457.webm (1.83 MB, 1280x720)
1.83 MB
1.83 MB WEBM
>>38533578
>the F-35 can only fly in a straight line
>eyeballs can see better than thermal cameras
>>
I almost wish ISIS had more AA so idiots wouldn't put these tard planes on a pedestal.
>>
>>38533247
why do you have to lie?
>>
>>38533525
>For the Marines/Army, having competent CAS is a matter of life-or-death. Shouldn't they be the first to be consulted in this?
Yeah, they should really be testing the F-35 against the B-1B, the premier CAS bird ;)
>>
>>38533616
>fighters cant do CAS
Might want to read up on cas from 1991-present.
>>
>>38533616
>fighters can't do CAS
Yeah thats why F-16s fly the most sorties because they can't do CAS. Nope, can't strap GBUs to them no sireee
>>
Q: Did the war have any effect on the Air Force's view of the A-10?
A: No. People misread that. People were saying that airplanes are too sophisticated and that they wouldn't work in the desert, that you didn't need all this high technology, that simple and reliable was better, and all that.
Well, first of all, complex does not mean unreliable. We're finding that out. For example, you have a watch that uses transistors rather than a spring. It's infinitely more reliable than the windup watch that you had years ago. That's what we're finding in the airplanes.
Those people . . . were always championing the A-10. As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle-- and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it, just like we replace every airplane, including, right now, some early versions of the F-16.
Since the line was discontinued, [the A-10's champions] want to build another A-10 of some kind. The point we were making was that we have F-16s that do the same job.
Then you come to people who have their own reasons-good reasons to them, but they don't necessarily compute to me-who want to hang onto the A-10 because of the gun. Well, the gun's an excellent weapon, but you'll find that most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs. So the idea that the gun is the absolute wonder of the world is not true.
>>
>>38533674
Q: This conflict has shown that?
A: It shows that the gun has a lot of utility, which we always knew, but it isn't the principal tank-killer on the A-10. The [Imaging Infrared] Maverick is the big hero there. That was used by the A-10s and the F-16s very, very effectively in places like Khafji.
The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line [sic] if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard.
Q: At what point did you do that?

A: I think I had fourteen airplanes sitting on the ramp having battle damage repaired, and I lost two A- 10s in one day [February 15], and I said, "I've had enough of this."
-Gen Chuck Horner air boss of forces in theater
>>
>>38533674
Wasn't this said in 1991?
>>
>>38533687
Yes in an interview for airforce magazine immediately following the end of desert storm
>>
The A-10 is the most versatile aircraft in the Air Force inventory
>>
With that said all A10 should be transferred to Texas ANG and fly sorties on the border.
>>
>>38533711
>f-15c
you should try harder sprey no one is going to believe you unless you say that f-15c's can be downed by 22lr while a-10'sa can take 30mm in your reddit macro
>>
>>38533711
You forgot one role for the A-10
>target
>>
>>38533711
The A-10 is so multirole it does less CAS sorties than a fighter
>>
>>38533711
>F-15C
>>
>>38533726
Convert it to fire rubber bullets and non-lethally shoot the legs off of illegals
>>
>>38533708
>"This will be the final use in combat of A-10s" says increasingly nervous General for seventh time this decade
>>
>>38533711
>Anti shipping in an A10
OH NO NO NO
>>
>>38533711
>F-15C
>>
>>38533756
Who are you quoting?
>>
>>38533247
What the fuck are you even talking about faggot. Especially the "F-35 won't be able to see anything" when it has like... far far far better optics, sensors, and cockpit visibility (since you know, they can see through the fucking plane).

I love the A-10 but for fuck's sake.
>>
>>38533711

since when has anybody called a F-15C multi role? it's air superiority.

and yes, an A-10 single role. it can't do OCA or DCA, while a multi-role like a F-15E, F-16, or F-35 can in addition to CAS, SCAR, AI, and to a lesser extent CSAR and the AM role (i highly doubt the A-10 does much anti-maritime stuff either)
>>
>>38533378
just fund the piper enforcer already jesus
>>
File: bc9.jpg (275 KB, 1555x737)
275 KB
275 KB JPG
>>38533771
>As the A-10 reaches the end of its life cycle-- and it's approaching that now--it's time to replace it
>1991
>>
File: _AUTOIMAGES_DC02724lg.jpg (25 KB, 500x500)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>>38533330
>Lockheed has deposited $100,000 and a block of heroin into your hotel room
>hookers come after the meeting
>>
>>38533247
>thinking the F-35 has a harder time seeing targets than the A-10

>thinking that the F-35 is worse at flying in bad weather
>>
>>38533247
A-10 is irrelevant for anything but show of force, it's absolutely useless in a real war and as demonstrated in the Iraq/Afgan/Syrian wars, other aircraft like the B-1's and F-16's flew the MAJORITY of missions.

Precise bombs trucks > slow dakka plane
If you need sustained dakka that's what the AC-130 is for.
>>
>>38533792
>it's time to replace it
>A-10 is being replaced as we speak
It's already been replace in its role by the F-16 and B1, the F35 soon, now its just time to mothball the fleet
>>
>>38533792
>>38533793
cringe
>>
>>38533804
Are you retarded? That was a reference to a USAF general saying that the A-10 was due to be retired shortly, just like the F-16A, in 1991. Read the thread.
>>
>>38533822
He was 100% correct that it was due to be replaced, it was already out dated the first time it saw conflict.
The problem is that Congress has a hardon for it for some reason and planes are not developed and fielded over night
>>
>>38533792
Desert Storm showed that the A-10 was already obsolete, what of it?
>>
>>38533806
>cringe
reddit
>>
>>38533867
stop projecting
>>
>>38533742
How many A-10's have been shot down by guerrillas and terrorists? Because that's who we're going to be fighting for the next 60 years or so, non-nation state actors that won't even have RADAR.
Even an A-10 is too much, there won't ever be any Russians coming over the Fulda Gap. Get the Super Tucano and you've got the most cost-effective CAS for a half-century.
>>
File: 1528095845963.jpg (454 KB, 1280x866)
454 KB
454 KB JPG
why isn't the AC-130 being massed-produced?

This thing can loiter an area for like 8 hours and carry more munitions than the A-10 and F-35 combined times 5.
>>
>>38533885
Because precision guided munitions >>>>> guns for CAS
>>
>>38533803
>flew the MAJORITY

you mean the 1,017 F-16's in service flew more sorties than the 280 A-10's in service?

im shocked- shocked!
>>
>>38533247
>the A-10 can loiter way longer than the F-35

wanna know how I can tell you are trolling?
>>
File: missile rack.jpg (59 KB, 800x534)
59 KB
59 KB JPG
>>38533901
>Because precision guided munitions

But the modern AC-130's are sacrificing some of their guns in exchange for precision guided minutions

check out this missile rack
>>
>>38533883

then again, the US had to kill Russian mercs from the air, including armor, near a Syrian airbase earlier this year.
>>
File: god save us p-52 2.jpg (250 KB, 1024x672)
250 KB
250 KB JPG
>>38533781
>we live in a timeline where their is no modernized p 51 in service
why live?
>>
>>38533883
Ask the Ukraine Air Force on easily your shit gets pushed in when your rebels have a giving patron.
>>
>>38533883
>lmao irl rebels don't have anything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Vb7UoJ4U1k
meanwhile irl this shit
not even getting into the massive number of manpads in use in the region and the extreem weakness of the tucano and a-10 to those.

seriously go back to your tame cartel drug wars you think are modern coin
>>
>>38533883
>guerrillas and terrorists? Because that's who we're going to be fighting for the next 60 years or so

this is the reality F-35fags needs to accept.
>>
>>38533917
Fuck me my dick is diamonds. Fund this. Fund this right now. Melt the A-10 fleet down and sell the scrap to fund this.
>>
>>38533931
Lind is that you?
>>
>>38533902
How many of each type were in use in Afghanistan/Iraq.
>>
File: 1434344081627.webm (447 KB, 640x360)
447 KB
447 KB WEBM
>>38533883
>>
File: 1528102142973.jpg (68 KB, 586x468)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>>38533933
>Fund this right now.

lol it's what they're doing. they're keeping the Howitzer, and they're getting rid of the 25mm and 40mm guns in exchange for a single 30mm gun. and the extra space is going for missiles and guided bombs.

i like it, but it makes me really really sad that they're getting rid of the 40mm BOFORS. that thing was fucking awesome.
>>
File: 1531065402117.png (90 KB, 473x415)
90 KB
90 KB PNG
>>38533917
>>38533933
>Pull the guns out of the sides of the plane
>line each flank with air-to-surface missiles
Jesus fucking christ we're living in the future
>>
>>38533578
>F-35's can't fly in circles

lolwut
>>
File: ac130j.jpg (459 KB, 3384x2252)
459 KB
459 KB JPG
>>38533984
They still have the 30mm Mk44 and the 105mm howitzer.
>>
>>38533885
Because it will get raped faster than the A10 in contested airspace. It's only good for shooting poor brown people.
>>
>>38534024
No I want both sides to be nothing but honeycombed covers for a hundred at least Javelins
>>
>>38534049
>It's only good for shooting poor brown people.

and russian mercenaries*
>>
>>38534049
>It's only good for shooting poor brown people
and a-10 isn't even very good for that. Yikes! cringe
>>
>>38533902
dude they literally grounded A-10's when they had to run missions against anything defended by AA.
>>
>>38534072

real talk from someone who was there:

the killing was done by Apaches, artillery, Mudhens, and robots. everyone else who typically gets credit showed up as the fight was finishing up.
>>
>>38534111

oh and Tornados.
>>
>>38533610
Or we can bring back the F-4 as a ground attack plane/bomb truck and let the F-35/everything else do AA
>>
>>38534111
>robots
Glad to hear that /r9k/ is finally making itself useful
>>
>>38533793
>see pic
>expect xeno tits
>am disappoint
>>
>>38533919
Tell me why again it lost to some fucking brazilian and some ugly shit that can carry paratroopers
>>
>>38533247
b8
>>
>>38533556
That's not what he's saying, he's saying "why not consult Patton when designing a tank", which isn't a terrible idea. He's the guy who has to use it, his input would be valuable.
>>
File: 1516713279978.webm (1.11 MB, 640x360)
1.11 MB
1.11 MB WEBM
>>38533578
>>
The A-10 is made to destroy Soviet Era tanks and thats it. Long as we're fighting desert people for oil we won't need to replace it.
>>
>>38533984
>flanks are lined with Air-to-Surface missiles
>imagining this but instead of chaff being dropped it's precision guided missiles

My dick is diamonds.
>>
I don't mind the A-10 being replaced.

I mind the A-10 being replaced by an aircraft that cannot meet every standard that the A-10 could.
>>
>>38533434
tell the class what sensors (other than those on the maverick) the a-10 has that can be used in those environments.
>>
>>38535171
Thing is we don't need a slow moving tank of a close range aircraft that can get shot to shit and not care when we can develop aircraft which don't get shot to begin with. Anything beyond sand people and the A-10 is shit since any modern military could blow it out of the sky easily. Like the Hind it is a relic of an earlier era.
>>
>>38533578

The faster you can spot targets the less risk for the pilot. A-10's get wrecked because they have shit sensors and have to loiter.
>>
>>38533247
Nothing new. The Pentagon Wars movie exposed this shit long ago.
Just business nothing personal.
>>
>>38533883
>Get the Super Tucano and you've got the most cost-effective CAS for a half-century.
Nope. Drones do it better.
>>
Isn't the "good" part of the A-10 the GAU-8 and not the plane itself?
>>
>>38533290
fpbp
>>
>>38533578
Just remove yourself from the discussion now. There is no way to recover from such a stupid post, unless there is some badly hidden sarcasm in here
>>
File: 1530445739019.jpg (333 KB, 1024x515)
333 KB
333 KB JPG
>>38533290
>being this buttmad because the f35 is a useless piece of shit
Kek
>>
>>38533917
Aw it poops hellfire
>>
just make way to your new BR overlords,a-10 fanboy.
>>
>>38533247
>1. Simulated enemies are placed in open desert and made highly visible because otherwise it would be too hard for the F-35 to see them
Unfair to the A-10 you mean

>2. The A-10 is only allowed to carry 1/3 of a full load of GAU-8 ammunition, otherwise it would be unfair
So it's standard ammo load then?

>3. Flying times will be severely limited during each sortie because otherwise it would be unfair because the A-10 can loiter way longer than the F-35
So you want Super Tucs to replace the A-10, cool

>4. Number of sorties flown each day will be limited because it's unfair that the A-10 can fly more sorties a day than the F-35
When you have 3 times more F-35's than A-10's available then individual sortie rates are far less relevant

>5. We can only fly during perfect weather because the F-35 can't handle other weather
[CITATION NEEDED]
For either aircraft - foul weather performance can be tested separately to target engagement

>6. We will only do 4 total days of flying and draw all our results from them
We will only do 4 days of testing as the results will be clear by the end of day 1, the other 3 days are confirmation
Tell me what country can be expected to survive 4 days of full rate combat with the USAF? I'll wait

>7. The tests will be created and operated by F-35 contractors who have a massive investment in seeing the F-35 succeed and the A-10 get replaced
>8. The tests will receive no input from A-10 pilots, JTAC's, the Army, or the Marines. Only F-35 contractors are allowed to have input!
The A-10 is already replaced in real terms. She was pulled from combat in Iraq and replaced with F-16's
This is not bias in favor of the F-35 if the F-16 replaced your baby, This is a final chance for the A-10 to do SOMETHING to justify a limited number to be kept on the inventory
>>
>>38533247
>5. We can only fly during perfect weather because the F-35 can't handle other weather
stop spouting bullshit,memeboy.
>>
>>38533525
>Why not involve A-10 pilots, JTAC, and Marines/Army who all have a vested interest in CAS?
They have done previously - The A-10 is favored only as an assigned asset, in which situation B-1Bs outclass it.
Fast movers are favored at the command level as reactive CAS
>>
>>38535209
>Thing is we don't need a slow moving tank of a close range aircraft that can get shot to shit and not care
The A-10 was designed when point defense AAA was 23mm like the Shilka, Not 30mm as is the standard now -
Even then No damage is the expected situation - Speed is life
>>
>>38533290
This.
>>
>>38533401
>>38533524
This poor soul had to die in a BR piece of shit, is this the future you really want for US pilots?
>>
>>38533247
>BUT TO MAKE IT FAIR....
>1. Simulated enemies are placed in open desert and made highly visible because otherwise it would be too hard for the F-35 to see them
It's the other way around lmao. A-10 doesn't have a ground radar, only the good old Mk2 eyeball and targeting pod which makes it a real pain in the ass to find a target if you don't know it's general area already.

>2. The A-10 is only allowed to carry 1/3 of a full load of GAU-8 ammunition, otherwise it would be unfair
Implying guns are relevant in today's battlefield.

>3. Flying times will be severely limited during each sortie because otherwise it would be unfair because the A-10 can loiter way longer than the F-35
I don't see the point of flying in circles for 3 hours when they already know the loiter times of both aircraft. F-35 has pretty good loiter time by the way so the A-10 has better loiter time argument is weak.

>4. Number of sorties flown each day will be limited because it's unfair that the A-10 can fly more sorties a day than the F-35
It's the other way around like your first point. A-10 is old, needs more maintenance and checks between flights.

>5. We can only fly during perfect weather because the F-35 can't handle other weather
The F-35 is no longer under any kind of weather restrictions..

>6. We will only do 4 total days of flying and draw all our results from them
>And lastly,
>7. The tests will be created and operated by F-35 contractors who have a massive investment in seeing the F-35 succeed and the A-10 get replaced
>8. The tests will receive no input from A-10 pilots, JTAC's, the Army, or the Marines. Only F-35 contractors are allowed to have input!
>.... There, totally fair!

You sound rather upset that your favorite aircraft is getting replaced by a superior modern fighter. Having difficulty to accept change is a sign of autism anon, you should get yourself checked for that.
>>
>>38533711
What can the A-10 even do anti-shipping with?
>>
>>38537762
Gun run somalian pirates I guess
>>
>>38537762
Anti-Maritime basicly means anti speedboat work with mavericks in a cape mouth
>>
>>38533565
we need to get in more wars to practice the a-10
>>
>>38533247
Schlomo has to convince the normies that they need money to continue developing the F35. Ain't that difficult to understand.
>>
>>38533975
what plane is that? The A-10 doesn't have a pitot tube infront of the cockpit, so it's not that.
>>
Why don't they upgrade the a-10 to have some modern systems. Half of the issues stated seem to point out that it's an old platform. Upgrade a few and test all 3 out
>>
>>38537891
or a mid-air refueling tube
>>
>>38533617
Not him, but I'd like to see those hundreds of tests. I'm neutral to all this shit but I want actual data not just claims from random anons
>>
>>38537891
title of the video : Recording from shot down heli Mi 24, August 2014, Luganskaya oblast'
>>
>>38533378
The Tucano is a meme-tier plane whose best claim to fame is that its as good as a plane from 70 years ago. Any jet trainer would be a better choice and fit the USAF/Army's existing logistics base.
>>
>>38533623
This thing alone would give the f35 a massive edge in combat over most existing aircraft.
>>
Reminder that no one mentioned that the state of the art F-35 has a 10 year old IR sensor and that's why the targets are being placed in the open.
And they are not placing and JTACs because the F-35 has no way to download videos to the controlers and no IR pointer to confirm the target with them.

So, yeah. It's back to Vietnam and the one pass and haul ass CAS
>>
>>38533919
It's a shame aesthetics aren't considered in military procurement.
>>
>>38533885
>why isn't the AC-130 being massed-produced?
Because it's not the same job
>>
>>38537951
they definitely are, just not openly
>>
>>38537919
overkill faggots like you are reason enough of why the military industrial complex is swimming in money while the rest are in debt.
fuck off and die.
>>
>>38533917
That is KC-130J Harvest HAWK, not AC-130. 'muhreens actually started to believe their "every 'muhreen is rifleman" motivational bullshit and decided that every tanker is gunship. That is actually pretty brilliant idea, tankers tend to loiter over battlefield, so why don't use it as weapons platform. Everything is aside from modified door for gun or missile/bomb launching is mounted on cargo pallet and almost all systems are taken from other aircraft. Sensors package and Hellfire launch rails are from AH-1Z. Fire control consoles are from SH-60. Hellfire launcher is mounted on left wing. Sensors are in rear of left external fuel tank. That ramp munitions rack is used fire GBU-44 Viper Strike or AGM-176 Griffin only rarely as using it requires depressurizing aircraft, in practice those are launched from modified left paratroop door. Since almost everything is on cargo pallets it can be unloaded in matter of hours and loaded in a day or two.

If there is anything they fucked up with Harvest HAWK, that would be ramp munitions rack and cabin layout. It should have ability to carry both gun and drop Griffins or Viper Strikes without depressurizing cabin at same time.

>>38533933
It was funded in 2006 or 2007, has been deployed since 2010.

>>38537398
Griffin or Viper Strike.

>>38533923
That isn't MANPAD. R-27 launched with jury rigged MiG-29 or MiG-23 radar, probably using IR terminal guidance version of the missile. It might be worth mentioning that F-15E made it back to base. There has been barely any MANPAD's used against coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, US had enough political influence to keep all relevant governments from supplying Taliban and Iraqi jihadists with SAM's. All that changed with Syrian and Yemeni civil wars because lots of major army depots were overran by rebels and US gave green light for Arabs to supply moderate Syrian beheaders and ISIS.
>>
>>38537912
thank you
>>
>>38537951
if they weren't, the X-32 would've won the contract
>>
>>38537948
no one is mentioning it because its a myth
>>
>>38533247
It's as if plebbit organized it
>>
>>38538129
>>it's a myth now?
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-the-f-35s-targeting-system-really-10-years-behind-cu-1676442535

Reminder that we're still are going to have this same discussion in 2030 while we wait for the block 666Z software update that allows the F35 to hit something with its cannon.
>>
>>38538197
You just proved his point by linking a link from Foxtrot Alpha, haha dumbass.
>>
>>38538088
Was it so much better?
>>
>>38533247
Nice source there, retard.
>>
>>38533247
>1. Simulated enemies are placed in open desert and made highly visible because otherwise it would be too hard for the F-35 to see them
t. retarded faggot. the f-35 can see from 40k ft what the a-10 pilot probably can't see 2k ft. off the ground
2. The A-10 is only allowed to carry 1/3 of a full load of GAU-8 ammunition, otherwise it would be unfair
probably want a round for round comparison to figure accuracy. the GAU-8 was fucking outdated as a tank buster in the fucking 80s.
3. Flying times will be severely limited during each sortie because otherwise it would be unfair because the A-10 can loiter way longer than the F-35
and the f-35 can get the job done quicker faster and more accurately while the GAU-8 is more likely to mulch friendlies. fuck off.
4. Number of sorties flown each day will be limited because it's unfair that the A-10 can fly more sorties a day than the F-35
and yet the f-35 will still be more effective per hour
5. We can only fly during perfect weather because the F-35 can't handle other weather
t. retarded faggot living off an unreliable article from years ago
6. We will only do 4 total days of flying and draw all our results from them
what do you want them to run months of tests to figure what everyone already knows?
And lastly,

7. The tests will be created and operated by F-35 contractors who have a massive investment in seeing the F-35 succeed and the A-10 get replaced
well since Fairchild Republic doesn't even exist anymore it's kind of hard to bring them out.
8. The tests will receive no input from A-10 pilots, JTAC's, the Army, or the Marines. Only F-35 contractors are allowed to have input!
source
>>
>>38538235
>>Hahahahaha you didn't link the site that I personally prefer. Tough luck there pal...
That's why Raytheon is developing a new DAS. Because the existing one is perfect.
Nevermind the fact that this problem is well documented in any of the F-35 reports.
>>
>>38533975
>Can't find proof

>Posts a Mi-24 getting shot down instead
>>
File: ag-802u.jpg (278 KB, 1024x695)
278 KB
278 KB JPG
Where's my cropduster squadron?
>>
>>38538407
looks like a modernized IL-2
>>
>>38533290
Right...
>>
>>38538440
>pic related
>plane is totaled don't worry just buy a new 110 million dollar one it just werks
>F-35
>just add fuel since it wasn't hit or engaged in the first place
>>
>>38533781
Then you realize that P-51's made now would be more than slightly more expensive than 50k per plane.

>>38537919
>The Tucano is a meme-tier plane whose best claim to fame is that its as good as a plane from 70 years ago. Any jet trainer would be a better choice and fit the USAF/Army's existing logistics base.
Jet trainers lack fuel to loiter over battlefield and whole point of using dedicated COIN plane is the fact that it cheap to use and can be operated with much less logistical support. There is a good chance instead of using a single Super Tucano or similar plane they would need few light attack aircraft modified from advanced training jets, since those can't stay over battlefield for long time.

The thing with Super Tucano is that USAF won over SOCOM and anyone on ground by delaying tactics. SOCOM wanted the plane sometime around 2005. Contrary to popular belief is A-10 isn't good aircraft for COIN operations, it is simply least bad aircraft for that kind of mission with B-1B. A-10 is as survivable on modern battlefield as Super Tucano. Practice target for anything more capable than MANPAD. Only reason A-10's could be deployed to Iraq in 2003 was the fact that USAF knew that Iraq had no functional SAM systems after more than decade of weapons embargo.

>>38538088
>if they weren't, the X-32 would've won the contract
X-32B had massive issues and Boeing would have practically had to redesign the plane to meet requirements, adding conventional tail to it. Also it had massive frontal RCS issue.
>>
>>38533330
>everyone who disagrees with me is a shill
The A B S O L U T E S T A T E of A-10 fanbois. Look, we all think the A-10 is really fucking cool, but you know what else is cool? The P-38 Lightning is pretty fucking cool. But it's not the forties anymore just like it's not the 80s anymore. Just because it's real fuckin' neato doesn't mean it isn't obsolete on the battlefield.
>>
>>38533247
THE F35 IS A PIECE OF SHIT
>>
>>38537320
SEETHING
>>
>>38538499
Bring out the Broncos instead of the Super Taco, or the Scorpion.
>>
File: TUnguska.jpg (142 KB, 1280x730)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
>>38538440
>Sandnigger milsurp AA
How about actual AA platforms with missiles and 30mm cannons? Face it the A-10 is only good against poorfags.
>>
>>38536445
>The Pentagon Wars
Into the trash it goes
>>
>>38533247
Why does the army and military overall hate the A-10 so much that they want to replace it so badly when it does the role it was made for just fine?
>>
>>38538658
Because its useless against a modern military and we've been fighting the third world so it still works.
>>
>>38534024
Did they sort out the accuracy issues with the Mk 44?
>>
>>38538658
It's a matter of money. Tactical airpower is not sexy and doesn't bring the big bucks in buck rogers technology.
They said that the Lightning could do the job of the Warthog so they could build more F-35s.
Sure enough, the chairforce could have kept some dedicated CAS squadrons equipped with a different plane but the A-10 has to die so the F-35 doesn't get owned in the battles that the US has been fighting for over 30 years.
>>
I love the F35. Ejection has 100% injury rate and 23% chance of fatality. $1trillion well spent lads.
>>
File: 1527409878153.gif (2.27 MB, 403x297)
2.27 MB
2.27 MB GIF
>>38533247
They should drop both and instead buy Stukas
>>
>>38538790
You got a source for that that isn't RT?
>>
>>38537919
>>38538499
Literally just use drones.

If it's a permissive environment, you can't beat the loiter time and crew safety.

If it's a non-permissive environment then low and slow CAS is going to be dumb.
>>
Speed is life.

Speed is life

SPEED IS LIFE!!!1!

Staying high and fast is how you stay alive now that stealth and growlers are a thing. Being low and slow means SAMs will have a much easier time hitting you, because they lose speed with distance after boost.

This is very basic stuff widely know, go on amazon and order a fighter pilot book and read mother fuckers. Download a study sim flight sim like BMS or DCS and see how flying low and slow works.

Low and slow is dead, for manned aircraft that want to survive at least.

For coin or whatever that's what uavs and tucanos and shit are for.
>>
>>38538658
>when it does the role it was made for just fine?
Because it doesn't. It was made to try and slow down swarms of Soviet armor rushing through Germany. When did it ever do that?

Even in the Gulf War, when there were swarms of armor across the desert, other aircraft killed more armor than the A-10.

The support of the A-10 is irl BRRRRTTTT memes.
>>
Two things f35 fags and A10 fags refuse to admit

The f35 can't do CAS
CAS is irrelevant in the era of precision strikes
>>
>>38534190
Can we please do this?
>>
>>38533247
The level of corruption at DoD is massive. Definitely the most corrupt branch of gov.

DoJ should just send half those scumbags to prion.
>>
>>38539440
Oh no not the prions whatever shall we do?
>>
>>38533290
>>
>>38533917
>missile massacres will soon become a reality.
>>
>>38538197
>https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/is-the-f-35s-targeting-system-really-10-years-behind-cu-1676442535
HAHAHHAHAHA... what a massive (and outdated) piece of shit! Every part of F-35 is a massive lemon. They should rename it L-35.
>>
>>38537302
The gun is a meme, and it's questionable whether it would even be effective against fucking T-55s. And you don't need DU munitions when all you're doing is shredding sand people.
>>
>>38533392
i’m honestly contemplating if you are only pretending to be retarded
>>
The A-10 wasn't a very useful aircraft in the more conventional environments of the wars against Iraq and its outclassed in COIN by drones, AC-130s, or even a B-1 loaded with JDAMs (which managed 24/7 coverage over Afghanistan). Why do we even need to justify pulling it from service by "replacing" it with the F-35 when its already been outclassed years ago by far more capable aircraft?
>>
>>38533498
>4 days of testing is nothing. People taking finals in college are tested longer than these planes.

This is the army, they are actually going to be working and studying; not getting drunk and playing video games
>>
>>38538791
>Stukas
funny enough, they brought in one of the top Stuka aces to consult when developing the A-10, he also introduced them to the concept of "Fingerspitzengefühl"
>>
>>38533591
Chemtrails, man
>>
>>38533650
>>38533651
Why can't you just strap that bomb on an A10? Don't they have kickass lift or something?
>>
>>38538591
>Bring out the Broncos instead of the Super Taco, or the Scorpion.
Textron Scorpion was eliminated from OA-X in February.

SOCOM managed to modernize couple ex-NASA Broncos NASA was forced hand 'em over, they also went after California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection airframes, but those turned out to be too worn out for aggressive maneuvering with payload. Last Broncos were assembled in mid 80's from left over parts made in 70's when Bronco was actually in serial production. There isn't Broncos that are in good enough condition to be modernized, so there will not be more of those. Boeing isn't going to build new production line for Bronco and they are too deeply involved in strategic partnership with Embraer. Boeing needed regional jets in their product lineup to compete with Airbus, so Boeing bought majority stake in commercial aircraft division of Embraer in June.

Whole point of USAF forcing competition for SOCOM requirement for COIN aircraft was delaying the program. It took decade from other aircraft manufacturers to get something like Super Tucano. SOCOM wanted the planes lot sooner than more than decade later. Providing support for ground troops and accomplishing missions are far lower than providing post military career employment opportunities with defense contractors for staff officers when it comes to USAF priorities. It is funny USAF has no problems in buying Super Tucanos with US taxpayers money as long as those are handed over to countries like Afghanistan as military aid.

Key West agreement and all other agreements that limit what kind of aircraft US Army can operate were mistakes.
>>
>>38533489
>synthetic aperture radar
Cover the hole.
>thermal imaging
with mylar
tada, both are beat.
>>
>>38538845
>Literally just use drones.
COIN aircraft has advantage in situational awareness. Pilot can quickly scan his entire field of view, most sensor packages for drones tend to have fairly limited field of view and have more limited information over orientation of their aircraft. Other factors are cost, flight performance and payload. Most drones that can match or exceed flight performance and payload of AT-6 or Super Tucano tend to be more expensive purchase and operate.

Drones or dedicated COIN light attack aircraft aren't really competing systems, but complimentary systems. Same applies to attack helicopters, those are without doubt the next alternative that someone will suggest.
>>
Gay anime plane ripoff vs battle hardened veteran.
>>
>>38539439
Funny enough, McDonnell Douglas was developing another F-4 model before they folded.>>38539456
Strengthen the wings, better engines and some better ground attack equipment and that thing would have been a force to be reckoned with.
>>
>>38539750
Did not mean to reply to >>38539456
>>
>>38539745
The A-10s only experience is bullying 3rd welders. It would get raped by SAMs in an actual conflict.
>>
>>38539369
Why cant it?
>>
Helicopters:
High loitering time
Variable payload depending on squadron size
Slow(er) to arrive in worst situation, but can be launched from convenient firebase as opposed to airfield
Lower range

Bombers (including variants):
High loitering time
High payload
VERY slow to arrive in worst situation
VERY long range

CAS:
Low loitering time
High payload
Fast to arrive in worst situation, only behind cruise missiles
Long range

Drones:
Virtually unlimited loitering time
Low payload per drone, though this can change at the snap of a finger from R&D and doctrine change within a few years
Slower than CAS in worst case, but has much more lenient launch platform conditions that should reduces range traveled in most situations (similar to helicopters)
Long range

It seems to me like the real fight isn't between A10 vs F-35. Whatever advantages you get and give up from the competition, from payload to loitering time to survivability to TTA to range, a better drone platform will outperform it in a very near future iteration.
>>
File: 1529555178793.jpg (135 KB, 1024x810)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
>>38533290
Unironically this

Anyone else is literally "the sound of the a10 saved my life because the Taliban got scared back into their caves" tier.
>>
>>38533247
LMAO this can't be real
>>
>>38533290
FPBP
>>
File: 1518703125682.jpg (319 KB, 2560x1440)
319 KB
319 KB JPG
I think this isn't so much a question of hardware, but of pilot training. Pilots cross-train on a variety of skills. The F-35 is designed to be multi-role; essential using one common air frame for all kinds of tasks to include close air support of ground troops. A-10 pilots train primarily on CAS because that was what the A-10 was designed for. They train with ground forces. They conduct briefings and AARs with the units they support. A-10 pilots have a knack for talking the 2500ft picture to a ground guy in a way he will understand from his perspective. There is a notable difference between talking to an A-10 pilot, versus an F-16 for example in terms of what they can see and how they try to support you. It all goes back to training and integration into the processes of supported ground forces. It surprises me that this continues to elude the AF considering that they already have a working solution in-house. It doesn't surprise me that they would fabricate tests trying to justify the $1 trillion plus price tag of their new toy, and trying to prepare for a theoretical future war by inventing relevancy while ignoring the war currently being fought.
>>
Why is this meme still around? The A-10 is a sitting duck to even the crappiest Chinese export 3rd world operated SAM. I loved the F-14 too but it's time to move on...
>>
File: 1522971084122.gif (1004 KB, 299x193)
1004 KB
1004 KB GIF
>>38538586
REDDIT
E
D
D
I
T
>>
>>38538030
>That isn't MANPAD.
Your reading comprehension is poor to nonexistant don't ever reply to me again until you have proven you have at least a post secondary education.
>>
>>38537909
You can readily find many of the tasvals published however large quantities of data over the decades it has been in service are going to be internal and not available. enjoy
>>
>>38539510
pathetic phone poster realizes everything he thinks he knows is retarded history channel garbage. sounds like I win;;;;;;;;;;
>>
>>38540062
Every single component of your post is a combination of neverserved and retarded misinformation. kys
>>
>>38540062
That's actually a very important point. Once the chairforce gets rid of the dedicated CAS squadrons they will probably designate a few hours per year for the pilots to train their "one pass and haul ass" missions and call it a day.
History has a tendency to repeat itself.
>>
>>38537320
Lmfao that jpg
>>
>>38534111
>robots
Lmfao
>>
>>38533557
my money! stop that!
>>
>>38538611

We only fight poorfags.
>>
File: 1448755018746.jpg (581 KB, 1380x1047)
581 KB
581 KB JPG
>>38533370
The last enemy we fought with serious aa capabilities got bombed back to the stone age with apaches, b2s, and f-117s punching the initial holes in the air defense. That was 28 years ago. Enemies capable of doing better have nukes. We will never enter in to conventional warfare with them aside from a couple escalating skirmishes prior to nuclear exchange.

This will leave them in the same position aa wise as Iraq and put us in a position where we are unable to support these things logistically.

This aircraft is designed to make wars more expensive so the next time we fight we will redistribute even more wealth from the citizens to the (((military industrial complex))). I guess 2 trillion for the last one and the trillion in ransom for the economy being held hostage wasn't enough.
>>
>>38540599
>This aircraft is designed to make wars more expensive

The F-16 has been more expensive over the time frame the F-35 budget covers.
>>
>>38540564
So we should arm our military to expecting the enemy to have nothing better than a sharp stick? Fucking retard.
>>
>>38540599
>This aircraft is designed to make wars more expensive
last I checked losing pilots and airframes to ground fire is more expensive
>>
>>38533290
sadly this
>>
>>38540777
As far as I can tell, we lost 1 in Iraq and the pilot survived. I can't find any losses from Afghanistan. So 20 million out of 2 trillion cost was a-10 losses and that's ignoring the fact we quit making them 30 years ago.They're free at this point.

>>38540620
I should hope so. The F-35 saw its first use in combat this year. To top ot off it was used by Israel. What a cohencidence!
>>
>>38533247
It's the fucking pentagon wars all over again.
>>
File: iowa so done.png (637 KB, 800x1256)
637 KB
637 KB PNG
>everyone's investing in high-power super duper awesome precise SHORAD to shoot down swarming drones AND mortars and rockets and cruise missiles
>yeah I'mma fly a fucking slow-ass full-sized airplane designed in the 70s into those defenses yee-haw BRRRT memes
>>
>>38541088
>everyone's investing
Which one of the countries we might actually end up fighting in the next 20 years is investing in it?
>>
File: ARMAMMSA9x19VSC.png (22 KB, 500x310)
22 KB
22 KB PNG
>>38541222
Si vis pacem...
>>
>>38540967
>they are free at this point.

Stop posting Mr. Kruger.
>>
>>38541222
>Which one of the countries we might actually end up fighting in the next 20 years is investing in it?

Russia and China, dipshit. Esp. since China either buys or steals all of Russia's shit.
>>
>>38540967
and the first Gulf War?

lol. A-10 got BTFO

>>>38541069
you know that's a fiction movie, right? it's bullshit
>>
>>38541321
Art imitates life mate.
>>
>>38533247
>weather and terrain conditions help the A-10
>F-35's loadout is heavily handicapped

WAHHNOTFAIRMUHBRRRT
>>
>>38539671
>buying Super Tucanos with US taxpayers money as long as those are handed over to countries like Afghanistan as military aid.
Well yeah, which AF pilot wants to fly that huehue Taco?
>>
>>38533330

>implying he doesnt make 125k a year salaried to shitpost
>>
>>38540468

i had months of basically nothing but CAS flights in spinup for my last deployment.
>>
>>38533392
Hiding in the dessert seems more like a light arms scenario than a CAS scenario
>>
>>38533617
Do you know the difference between the Sahara and a bowl of ice cream?
>>
>>38533290
Then run the test with both planes operating with their optimal loadouts for the same missions?

If survivability against AAA is how the F-35 is better, then this test won't show that, but it appears to be designed to use the A-10 sub-optimally to guarantee results in which the F-35 is more useful. Multiple levels of fail if op isn't full of shit.
>>
>>38533392
>>Number of sorties flown each day will be limited because it's unfair that the A-10 can fly more sorties a day than the F-35
>sounds like a testing limitation

How isn't that a limitation on real world operations?
>>
>>38533489
>tfw you go to war against near peer China and you developed all your weapons for desert fighting when your desert dwelling enemies don't even have radar
>>
>>38533568
field testing is not lab testing, anon. You can't fly a jet in a big hangar you can put sprinklers in.
>>
>>38533883
>Because that's who we're going to be fighting for the next 60 years or so, non-nation state actors that won't even have RADAR.
>>38533931
>>38540564
>>38540599
> We will never enter in to conventional warfare with them aside from a couple escalating skirmishes prior to nuclear exchange.

You fuckers need to stop with this thinktank wank bullshit. "Muh we won't ever fight a near-peer or peer threat because modern" is the exact kind of bullshit complacency that winds you up ill-equipped when such a war is upon you, then you lose big, and then if you're *lucky*, you might pull off a status quo ante after taking disproportionate losses.

Also, lol at the assumptive fucks that think they know to an affluent certainty what the hell's going to happen in a novel situation where nuclear powers find themselves in conflict. It's never happened before, and if you think in any way that translates into it can't happen "because it just can't," then you don't understand dick about human history and the nature of human conflict. Will it go nuclear? I don't know and neither do you. No one does. Simply assuming "current year" and "cuz nukes" means no war with such powers--be it conventional or "aw shit"--is possible is wildly short-sighted, ignorant, fatuous ass bullshit.

One surefire way making sure war does happen is organizing your military assuming it won't.
So coming back to the thread, replace the A-10, either with something multirole and capable, or with something dedicated to smearing insurgents across the ground while maintaining and advancing a capable, modern deterrent against near-peer and peer threats.

Unless of course this nonsense is coming from vatnik and chink trolls squeezing loads off at the idea of burgers going like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and opting for a doctrine that makes the military a combined arms version of the LAPD circa 1991.
>>
>>38533902
>All F16's were involved in Iraq
>All A-10s were involved in Iraq
You're a nigger.
>>
>>38538009
>overkill is bad
If you're worried about money it's more expensive to replace lost airframes and qualified pilots than it is to just make sure the plane is good and the target is thoroughly outmatched in the first place.
>>
>>38533435
>>38533330
>>38533557
Boeing called to remind you it’s no longer 1992.
>>
>>38539369
>CAS means gun runs
You're dumb.
>>
File: 5841036151_71675f9b53_o.jpg (361 KB, 1000x714)
361 KB
361 KB JPG
>>38544725
>if op isn't full of shit.

"Each A-10 carried two laser-guided 500-pound bombs, two captive-carry Maverick guided missiles, a pod of marking rockets, and only 400 30 mm cannon rounds. The F-35s carried a single 500-pound laser-guided bomb and 181 25 mm rounds, the most each plane could carry."

The F-35 was severely handicapped to make it fair for the A-10.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.