on one hand, probably a dumb idea against near-peer, and even worse with MANPADS, but on the other what is the replacement?
>>64742705>inb4 dronesBut it is drones though
Did the Taliban not have any MANPADS by the time America came?
>>64742705>but on the other what is the replacement?F-35, F-15EX, literally every other jet in the USAF inventory except the oldest F-15C/Ds can do CAS.
>but on the other what is the replacementLiterally anything capable of slinging a bomb/missile
>>64742705Super Taco or start making Skyraiders great again.
>>64742871This anon understands. US can do CAS with strategic bombers. Whether we should or not is a different question.
>>64742705For a peer war it's completely uselessFor slinging dick in an uncontested airspace, it's pretty goodThe question is whether the latter use justifies the cost of keeping and maintaining them. For the middle east adventures, probably yes. But whether it'll get any use in any upcoming conflicts? I wouldn't say it's too likely, unless our next war is in Iran
>>64742705>>64742712Unironically it was replaced by the Reaper decades ago.
>>64743021Came here to say this. I would add that it does the CSAR (Sandy) role better than any other airframe. With our capabilities, a permissive environment is just a couple of days away and the A-10 would not have any problems. Would be good to have in a National Guard squadron.
>>64742888We have done CAS with strategic bombers extensively. It's extremely effective.
