*replaces your A-10*

because they have childish emotional attachments to machines due to autism.

>close air support is no longer useful

Attached: brainlet.jpg (628x534, 75K)

>the A-10 is exclusively CAS
>low level attack is the same as CAS
>you need to go low and slow to do CAS

>when old equipment gets replaced
I would love to see the A-10 replaced. But the F-35 is not that replacement. The Air Force has always thrown a fit over having to operate an aircraft that isn't a super cool grey supersonic fighter jet from Battlestar Galactica. They tried to replace it with the "A-16" in the late 80's until Desert Storm revealed how stupid an idea that was, and it's the same now. They could adopt a new and better close support plane to replace it, but they don't want to.

>the A-10 is exclusively CAS
No, but it's pretty fucking good at it.

strictly speaking, it's only showy and loud, not good.

for CAS you need a plane that can be on station fast, for a long time, with a lot of ammo. The A-10 runs out of fuel and is slow as shit, so you can't really count on it to get there in time if you didn't call them expecting heavy contact.

as far as Afghanistan has shown, B-1s are the best CAS, they can haul ass to rescue you on the other side of the country, fly all day waiting for a mission, and never run out of bombs. And if they get shot at they can just climb and speed away.

Tbf, i got a massive raging boner each time a A10 gave us some on-station brrrt.

But then again, just a B-1 doing a low show of force flyby will make a roar loud enough to shake your soul..

When the light attack aircraft finally gets operational, it will probably kill more hajis than the F-35 will.... No need for a strakth fighter when there are no AA threats

Unironically consider suicide
>A-10
>outdated
>if it's newer than it's better
>yes goyim, buy my 100 million dollar flying brick that catches fire from a bit of wind
>replace your battle tested reliable attack aircraft
D.O.D. shill, please leave

nigga even the air force doesnt want the A-10. the BRRRT is useless and it cant carry that much ordinance compared to other high and fast planes. not to mention its MANPAD/SAM magnet. i would say its had its run but it was obsolete at day one.

For ideal close support you need an aircraft slow enough for the pilot to see just what the hell he's shooting at. This is a lesson that the US has for some reason had to re-learn in every single war it has fought since Vietnam, and somehow every time the Air Force convinces itself that supersonic planes with a high stall speed can do the job better before being proven wrong again.

The A-10 is not perfect. It hasn't got a great loiter time and it wastes a lot of space on a gun that beyond its meme potential is hardly worth its weight today and couldn't be removed without substantially redesigning the aircraft. But it's still infinitely better than a jet fighter in its role. Actually getting rid of the thing would at least require the Air Force to stop dragging their feet on their light attack plane program, at which time they'll probably remember why they stopped using light attack planes in favor of something that can take 23mm rounds in the first place.

Attached: AT-6.jpg (1024x768, 432K)

This. Responding to request for CAS within ten minutes and hammering a target with a PGM without warning and then swooping over the crater at Mach 1, 1km AGL is far more impressive than Burt the Warthog, in my opinion. I wouldn't have said no to any form of air support, though.

>even the air force
You mean *only* the Air Force. They have always had this attitude towards the A-10 and low-speed close support in general. The problem would be solved if they just let the Army operate the thing, as they've tried to make happen in the past, but nothing triggers USAF harder than suggesting the Army might operate their own fixed-wing aircraft.

they army doesnt want it either, no one fucking wants it. its as outdated as the the fucking spitfire. its an ancient rust bucket that has more friendly fire incidents than kills. the only reason that it hasnt been retired is because congress keeps it alive by feeding it money. its a welfare plane.

the A-10 was always the poor mans frogfoot. its a relic of the cold war that wouldnt have even worked back then. give it a rest.

>The A-10 served us well did an awesome job
wrong. it was useless from the word go.

>the A-10 was always the poor mans frogfoot
OP confirmed Russian. The second we retire the last A-10 is when the T-90s start rolling into Europe.

not like the A-10 would do anything against those T-90s anyways

There's probably no combat aircraft we field more useless against a Russian assault than an A-10. It would be downed in short order by MANPADS, let alone what else they have.

They haven't made parts for the A10 in decades, it's outdated

>For ideal close support you need an aircraft slow enough for the pilot to see just what the hell he's shooting at.
stop pretending to know current tactics and usage with blatantly false and easily disprovable drivel lol retard

Attached: strela.jpg (665x341, 36K)

>But then again, just a B-1 doing a low show of force flyby will make a roar loud enough to shake your soul..

One of the few times I legit thought I was going to die was when a b-1 did a show of force over me when i had no idea it was coming. I thought all of the rpgs in the world were coming right at me.

fairchild also doesn't even exist it hasn't for well over a decade

>For ideal close support you need an aircraft slow enough for the pilot to see just what the hell he's shooting at.

Wanna know how I know you've never been on the same continent as a CAS mission?

>tfw the IR illuminator from an f-15 shines from the heavens on a qalat that you're lasing
>tfw that too-cool-for-school voice asks over the net "This one? Ok. Shot out."

>For ideal close support you need an aircraft slow enough for the pilot to see just what the hell he's shooting at.
>This is a lesson that the US has for some reason had to re-learn in every single war it has fought since Vietnam,
Ah yes I too remember that one time in the gulf war where the air force fell for the low and slow meme spouted by brainlets like you and lost more a-10's due to ground fire in a single day than it had lost in over 2 decades

I didn't know the A-10 was useful against a (relatively) modern army that has a massive erection for strapping MANPADS to everything it owns/conscripts

Attached: Iraqi.png (1919x1080, 2.15M)

>The second we retire the last A-10 is when the T-90s start rolling into Europe

Attached: litany against bait.png (600x600, 17K)

that's not how things work in 2018. You need a plane with good senors. The mark 1 eyeball is dog shit.

I guess we should retire our attack helicopters for the same reasons, then?

Those aren't mutually exclusive. It's not about traditionalism or "the good old Mark 1 Eyeball", you could accomplish the same thing with a purpose-built drone. It's just that a lower stall speed means more time to hit things. JDAMs dropped from high altitude are perfectly fine most of the time but there's still a need for low-speed aircraft. Hence why such aircraft are still in use in every major armed forces, either in the form of low-speed attack aircraft or attack helicopters.

Imagine being this ignorant about how things actually work, kek

Fucking civilian LARPers are so easy to spot

>a-10 get replaced by BR plane
YAY WE WUZ WINNERS.

Attached: 15c87cf954edae449ff546e461c7edf3c3e3f43ac9888009295496fca29a2388.png (1262x883, 40K)

They will probably pick the Beechcraft for exactly this reason.

>they will
but they didn't.
the favela model is combat proven while beechcraft was made just to fill contractors pockets.

Attached: Hue17thCav1967R.jpg (437x625, 29K)

>MUH UNPROVEN AIRCRAFT

honestly, why are you such a faggot? What do you have to base your tiny opinion on? Made up data?

Is there any data on how many gun runs have been done in the last 10 years versus PGM?

Based

>reddiot spacing
>Made up data?
so like what you base your false world view motivated opinions on, my son?

Attached: kanna sips.png (400x400, 178K)

If gun runs were actually relevant then surely rocket pods and gun pods would also be used more?

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.

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."

-General Chuck Horner, 'air boss' during the Persian gulf war in Air force Magazine interview in 1991

>most of the tank kills by the A-10 were done with Mavericks and bombs
>MOST
Im amazed its not all. Can that gun even hole anywhere on a T-72 aside from the relatively tiny engine cover?

/thread

You're a retard, that user is completely correct. The A-10 will not be directly replaced by any one aircraft, it's role will be spread out among several different airframes currently in the USAF's arsenal and a few future aircraft if/when they're procured like the LRSB and the USAF LAAR.

The F-35 is only directly replacing the F-16, AV-8B, and F/A-18A/B/C/D.

I don't entirely disagree with the point you're trying to make but your watch analogy is garbage. A mechanical watch is generally worlds more complicated than a quartz movement.

>childish emotional attachments to machines due to autism.
It's machines with big, flashy, and easily understandable firepower that attract most of this. Battleshits, BRRRT, so on. I propose to you that autism isn't at fault here, but a lack of autism. A properly obsessed .mil-autist would look past muh guns and try to understand the whole picture

>the only reason that it hasnt been retired is because congress keeps it alive by feeding it money
This. Congress has direct control over military spending through the yearly NDAA bills. USAF begged to be allowed to put away the A-10 !along with all its attendant infrastructure!, because the $$$ can be used better. Retards like McCain forced USAF to keep them.

it will never cease to amaze me that some nigger navy pilot with brain cancer who graduated bottom of his naval academy class and who self admittedly can't do math and crashed his first two aircraft one by hitting telephone lines has so much power over the airforce. glad they managed to cuck him on the b-21 budget secrecy thing

fucking kek, what a shitshow of a plane

Canada asked for them a few years back, I think even the Aussies put in offers for them. I know they use them now in civilian roles to fly into hurricanes.

Oh, looks like they are bring used for tornados now as well.
news9.com/story/28039187/a-10-warthog-to-take-on-oklahomas-thunderstorms