>www.twz.com/air/a-10-warthog-being-tested-with-aerial-refueling-probe
just retire the damn things already
Why give up probe for drogue?
Wtf? they already were refuelable via flying boom. Are they going to give them to the USMC or something?
>>65052606>>65053166Being able to refuel off drogue lets them tank off a C-130 or even a F-18 carrying buddy stores.
>>65052602When they make a better Sandy aircraft, sure. Until then, fuck off.
>>65054430Here's your A-10 replacement, bro!
>>65054430Right here.
>>65054507Fuck off, pissant. Shit loiter time. Shit slow speed ground assessment. Shit CGS payload. Fucking B1 is better at A10 missions than that piece of shit.
>>65052606Booms are for moving shit tons of fuel onto big strategic platforms which the USAF operates. USN has always been fighter based and they don't need to move huge amounts of fuel onto fighters so they stick with drogues. Looks like this is to allow A-10s to fuel up off C-130s and smaller platforms.
>>65054562>Shit slow speed ground assessmentFor fucks sake anon at least it has the most advanced sensor cluster in the skies, that's one better than the A-10 pilot needing binoculars.
Why is it difficult to make a port that can use both boom and chute? I imagine something like a probe you deploy but it can swivel to match an angle for a boom.Having to dedicate to one over the other seems like a massive downside.
>>65054838Not by all measures, the USAF has found the integrated sensors a pain in the ass to modernize. Pods like Litening and Sniper are widely available (binoculars, hah), cross-platform and easily swapped as enhanced models become available. The Lightning II's AN/AAQ-40 is a generation behind now, Sniper-XR internals rather than Sniper-NTP.
>>65054507Yeah bro, you want a high tech jet getting shot at by dickheads with small arms on the deck while on a CSAR mission.
>>65055358Then use an F-15E
>>65055358F-35's EOTS means it can sit pretty high up doing CSAR.
>>65055370Even more vulnerable to pads for men.
>>65052602Why? It’s actually doing shit.
>>65054507Can’t do dick against shahed drones and cost magnitudes more to produce
>>65056342>Can’t do dick against shahed dronesWhat makes you think that?
>>65054487>>65054507Both of them are too small and can't hold the A-10's payload.We need a plane that is the A-10 but with better engines after 50+ years of developments.
>>65054430Just have the rescue chopper equipped with a pod of attack drones and a pod of search drones. Job done.
>>65056360what weapon can the f 35 use to cost effectively destroy shaheds?
