As I’m sure many of you have known for a long time, the Army has selected the V-280 Valor for its Blackhawk replacement, and just a few days ago it was officially announced that it would be named the MV-75 Cheyenne, which reminded me of this pick. Now, I understand why the Army wants this helicopter. They feel they need a longer-range helicopter for a hypothetical military conflict with China in the Taiwan strait. Perfectly understandable. It’s faster and can carry more people, and again, has a significantly further range. It lift more weight. I have no problem with the Army procuring a large number of these for a hypothetical Taiwan conflict, but as a REPLACEMENT for the Blackhawk? I’m not so sure. It’s larger and cannot land in the smaller areas that the Blackhawk can. It can work for its intended purpose, but it can’t work everywhere. You need big helicopters, and very small helicopters, but is the Blackhawk not perfect for that mid-sized role? It reminds me of proposals to replace the A-10 with a combination of Jets and Propeller planes to split the role in two and have either take on their respective responsibilities, but the problem is that neither jets or planes are flying tanks with bus sized miniguns on them. You’re not going to have the same goldilocks advantage with an A-29 Super Tucano or and F-35 as you do with the A-10 unless you can fit the comically large miniguns on both of them in addition to the bulletproof bathtub armor casing around the cockpit. Thoughts?
>>650867731. It's not fully replacing the blackhawk, they plan to keep some around. It's also actually shorter than the blackhawk so depending on the direction you land it can still fit into like 95% of places a blackhawk can go. The other option was also large.2. You're a retard for thinking the a-10 is still relevant. Getting into gun range is just styling on helpless opponents. Getting more dangerous every year.
>>65086773Cuck copter Mark 2026
>>65086803>It's not fully replacing the blackhawk, they plan to keep some around.Well, that’s reassuring>It's also actually shorter than the blackhawk so depending on the direction you land it can still fit into like 95% of places a blackhawk can go.Oh, I see. I didn’t notice that. I only paid attention to the width, good point>The other option was also large.Oh for sure, the other option is actually worse>You're a retard for thinking the a-10 is still relevant. Getting into gun range is just styling on helpless opponents. Getting more dangerous every year.Eh, maybe. I just think in some situations it might still be worth keeping
>>65086773>just a few days ago it was officially announced that it would be named the MV-75 Cheyenne*MV-75 Cheyenne II
>>65086830There is undeniably a mission where the A-10 is the best possible option and nothing else can match it. The problem is, maintaining the readiness of the A-10 fleet draws resources away from assets that are more effective across a broader range of roles. By optimizing for a corner case, you're compromising on core capabilities. It's not a matter of whether jets and drones and helicopters can do a better job than an A-10, it's a matter of whether they can do a good enough job while also being ready and able to perform more important and/or higher demand missions.
>>65086773>It reminds me of proposals to replace the A-10 with a combination of Jets and Propeller planes to split the role in two and have either take on their respective responsibilities, but the problem is that neither jets or planes are flying tanks with bus sized miniguns on them. You’re not going to have the same goldilocks advantage with an A-29 Super Tucano or and F-35 as you do with the A-10 unless you can fit the comically large miniguns on both of them in addition to the bulletproof bathtub armor casing around the cockpit.I really need to get around to making that thread about the A-10 and the CAS mission going forward that I keep putting off. The retarded takes on this are starting to wear on me.
>>65086861My bad, you’re correct>>65086869Well, you make a good argument. I hadn’t thought of it that way>>65086871I’m open to any and all arguments. I’d love to hear your thoughts
>>65086773> It’s larger and cannot land in the smaller areas that the Blackhawk can.From an armchair general perspective yes. From a practical comparison of landing zones it's the same.It has a very simple very powerful benefit: double the range and double the speed. It's a straightforward powerful upgrade in exactly the area of performance most needed right now.
>>65086937How easy is the bugger to maintain? Double speed and double range with half the readiness rate isn't an improvement. And although I'm not a military nerd, I can see it has twice the moving parts.
>>65086945they both have 2 engines and two rotors, the only major addition of moving parts is the rotor tilt mechanism
>>65086773The US Army traditionally names all its choppers after "native" tribes. Cheyenne's first attempt at having one named after them failed due to the YAH-56 failed to be adopted. Kind of like how when the original SoDak class of standard battleship was cancelled it got a new class of fast battleship named after it after the North Carolina class.
>>65086895The "goldilocks" of the A-10 was being overcosted overkill against low-tech insurgents and a flying coffin against anyone with anything resembling seriosu air defenses that do not date back to the early 70's.
>>65086869Equal cost in drones will do everything 20x better than A10 without risking any pilots
>>65086869>There is undeniably a mission where the A-10 is the best possible option and nothing else can match it.And what is that mission>gun can't pen tanks made after 1975>gun dispersion can't hit targets accurately>MANPAD proliferation has made it significantly less survivableA Mudhen or Superbug can do everything it can do but faster.
>>65086803>2. You're a retard for thinking the a-10 is still relevant. Getting into gun range is just styling on helpless opponents. Getting more dangerous every year.If you think that's the only thing the A-10 does then you are a retard. Its been putting in a lot of good work over Iran. The biggest drawback is Republic is dead so you can only do so much with the airframe.
>>65087063>tanksYou're an idiot if you think the avenger is for tanks. It is for everything else. The Mavericks are for the tanks.
>>65087077>It is for getting the plane shot up by MANPADs and unironic AA gunsFTFY
>>65087077>can't disable stationary tanks with multiple gun runs>the gun is for smaller, faster targets
Anything new like this is going to kill about 100 people and be called a "boondoggle" before they fix all the faults and it becomes the workhorse for the next 50 years
>>65087060An A-10 is cheaper than a Reaper.>>65087063The mission is carrying a bunch of missiles around low and slow to visually identify ground targets in mostly permissive airspace, and sometimes lighting up lightly armored vehicles with the gun. It's something that comes up more than never, which is why they still get used, but it doesn't come up often enough to justify keeping the A-10s around when the money spent maintaining them would be better utilized on practically anything else, especially when you consider that even if a Reaper wouldn't be quite as effective, it can complete the mission without putting a pilot in danger.
Tiltrotors will never ever replace helicopters.
>>65087151Looks like you’ve been paying attention to historical trends in military procurement. Get the fuck out of here, we don’t like book reading faggots on this board. Now please respond so I can call you brown, a jew, a tranny, or a brown tranny jew depending on your post.
>>65087310Seething brownoid thirdie chinkshill is usually what I get here. Occasionally poojeet but that's rather uncommon
>>65087151OP hereTo be fair, I’ve heard that they’ve preemptively worked out a ton of issues that would’ve otherwise been expected from such an aircraft beforehand, but there may still be unforeseen issues with it.
>>65087345They learned a lot from the Osprey, this is building on what they learned from what worked and didn't on that, which despite the memes, isn't anymore of a deathtrap then any other chopper operated by the US mil in accidents per flight hour
>>65087151That's cold war procurement thinking. Twenty-first century procurement is kill the program after a small number of them have been built during LRIP and revert back to cold war era platforms because they're cheaper in the short run.Naming this Cheyenne II is just asking for this to be cancelled in the same way as Booker, which the Democrat-controlled Congress will certainly do in FY30-31.
>>65087351True
>>65087351>They learned a lot from the OspreyThis is the same issue as the LCS or the MQ-1. There is new tech, the military builds a new fangled thing with it, works out some of the kinks in operation, figures out something they screwed up during the design, and goes on to make a better successor. Meanwhile, everyone else is losing their mind because everything is not perfectly sorted out the instance an entirely new thing is invented.
>>65087302A Superbug or Mudhen with a Litening or Sniper Pod are capable of the exact same thing, but better.
>>65086830>I just think in some situations it might still be worth keepingSuch as? If you need a bomb truck to lob missiles at enemy positions and armored units, use an F15. If you need CAS for squads of infantry clearing out a town or a patch of forest than have Apaches/Venoms fly overhead or nearby. If you think the A10 needs to stick around because of its cannon than that's a fucking stupid take. Let the bird retire before the last airframes get shot down.
>>65086830Blackhawks are going to transition to an automous platform soon. They can chop off the nose and make it a front loader to deploy smaller drones or cargo at long range in contested airspace.
>>65087522Then maybe they should build prototypes and figure things out before committing to designs? Like any proper development program?Why are there still useless V-22's flying around today ?
>>65087735Loiter time the A10 beats the F15, range it beats helicopters. We saw it used in support of the pilot rescue in Iran, where it loitered about for hours while helicopters had to be flown in
>>65087717>muh loiter>muh payload>muh having enough survivability to turn a retarded mission into a stupid oneIn case you have difficulty with reading comprehension, let me state my position clearly: we should have retired the A-10s thirty years ago.
>>65087805Why doesn't QA catch all the bugs in software prior to release?
>>65086773Your mother choosing to not swallow is the only stupid decision I see here
>30mm MAD-FIRES guided projectiles>8 Litening pods that can each laze a dozen different targets at a time>BRRT>Headshot 100 targets at onceThe A-10 isn't dead, it's just getting started.
>>65087825multiple crashes due to lies on the spec sheet is not a QA problem
>>65088107I see you are either one of the retards unable to grasp the point of anologies or too scared to engage with it. Cheers!
>>65087821I thought you were the anon defending the continued use of the A-10, my bad.
>>65087821thats cute but how about extension until 2040
>>65088766I'm also >>65086869 and >>65087302. Acknowledging that the A-10 is effective in its role is not the same as claiming that the role is common or important enough to require dedicated assets.
The level of A-10 hate on /k/ has truly been the bellwether for how far this board has fallen to reddit onions war tourists. It's a cool plane, nobody cares about your 14 page dissertation on procurement budgets, including congress lamo!!!!!!!
unfortunately, Lady Bird Johnson owned stock in the wrong MIC firm. :(Max speed 430mph at 20,000ft.This thing could refuel off a 707 and gas up choppers, or vice versa.Could also land/take off conventionally, as in Cat Launch or dead stick landing.
>>65088866A-10 would've been slaughtered by basic bitch 23mm AAA against Soviet 3rd raters. Heck, it'd be slaughtered by Cuban 23mm AAA today.Even basic bitch post WW2 23mm is big step up from like USN 20mm of WW2.
>>65087063>gun dispersion can't hit targets accuratelyThe gun dispersion of the A-10 gun was artificially, intentionally increased to make hits more likely, it can be decreased again too if required. Or just get a bit closer, the fire from like two miles away.
>>65088967>The gun dispersion of the A-10 gun was artificially, intentionally increased to make hits more likelyThis is the first I am hearing of this, I want a source
>>65087077The "everything else" gets shredded by 20mm and 25mm.>>65087302The A-10 is priceless because none have been made since 1984. Even if you wanted to buy one, you can't.If you want to compare prices, you'll have to figure out the cost of rebuilding an A-10 production line in 2026 dollars rather than 1970s/1980s dollars so you can estimate a unit cost, and also account for all the upgrades it received and add to the production cost of a new one. In the end a new A-10 is probably gonna cost 50 to 60 million.
>>65088981He made it the fuck up.They tested it in 79>10 M-47s>9 passes from the side >565 rounds fired>140 "hits" - 47 ricochet>17 penetrationsMost of the damage was to tracks. A single Gator mine canister would be more effective.
>>65086773The A-10's gun is the most worthless part of it's design. It offers almost no practical utility and is a psychological tool only. You need weapons that kill the enemy, not scare them.
