Hey Jow Forums, in your opinion what is the best C.A.S. capable jet the U.S. has to offer?

does what an A-10C can AND can dogfight and land on carriers. beat that.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (2000x1110, 487K)

Basically anything that can carry smart bombs and guided missiles.

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.

Good design by Rudel.

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. Charles A. Horner

You forgot to add "and why is it the A-10"

Its a meme airplane, and its quickly becoming useless.
>t. Stationed on a ACC base with A-10’s.

Fun fact: only A-10’s under the 23d Fighter win are authorized the shark teeth.

ITT: Retards who think CAS is a role and not a mission any plane with high precision ordinance can carry out.

Best CAS plane cummin through

Attached: 3828506-840x420.jpg (840x420, 30K)

Logistics tho

Watsit?

I fly it a lot in DCS and desu the F18c seems more useful for everything than the A10

With the A10 its difficult to get kills even on t64s with the gun and not getting shot up by the coax. Its POSSIBLE to get kills on t64, t72 and t90, but by the time it takes to get lined up and within 1 mile its an odds game of whether or not you are taking 12.7 rounds and whether or not they disable an engine or hit something important (the plane is usually able to limp back to base but it seems wasteful). Furthermore you engage doing pop ups pulling a lot of g to dodge 12.7 which makes you bleed crazy air speed for every run and the lackluster thrust to weight ratio makes it take a bit of time to get back up to where you want to be speed wise.

The real way that you want to deal with tanks is agm65 mavericks, but you can hang those off of f18c's as well as you can an A10 and fly higher and faster which makes it easier to avoid SAMs.

Unguided bombing is also way easier in a F18 because A. Its easier and faster to make multiple runs and B. The extra velocity makes the arc of the bomb shoot out further and you dont need a crazy steep dive angle.

The f35 with a fuck ton of guided missiles and guided bombs to me makes a whole lot of sense.

I can see the A10 being useful for taking out IFVs, logistic stuff and trucks/technicals, but i always come back asking myself why not just hang a bunch of rocket pods off of super tucanos supported by a few f16 or f18 to take out AA or more hardened targets and in case they send up enemy air stuff.

more bombs, better targeting pod, more gas, better radar, not as hamstrung by the fact that they need to land on a carrier. can't dogfight as well.

Attached: f-15e.jpg (2400x1597, 1003K)

>f18s NEED to land on a carrier

Are you retarded?

no, but i did get back from the air war a few months ago.

The A10 is an excellent CAS aircraft...but it is not a CAS aircraft for our modern times.

Yes, it can shred light armor and soft skinned vehicles, but struggles against real armor. It is a great plane for fighting an army without any real AA, but it will not survive against a modern AA equipped force.

For CAS against sand people options like the Super Tucano are more cost effective and efficient solution.

I love the A10 as much as the next guy, but it's time has passed.

Holy fuck you think F18s need to land on carriers and can't land on runways?

given that i saw a burned-out Rhino in Bahrain when i visited the carrier, of course not. but the majority of the Hornet/Rhino sortie generation in theater was off the boat, and they limited their bomb loadout in order to limit their risk if they couldn't take the trap the first time, as well as the inherent limitations imposed by deck cycles on on-station time and the ability to extend.

there was plenty of stuff on the Rhino/about navy life i liked, but there was plenty of stuff on the Strike Eagle i liked better.

Attached: 20180225_084059.jpg (3264x1836, 1.04M)

and even the land-based legacies didn't cary that much bomb load.

their targeting pod was better than ATFLIR, which is a piece of shit.

Attached: 20180225_162953.jpg (3264x1836, 1.5M)

>they need to land on a carrier
>the majority of the Hornet/Rhino sortie generation in theater was off the boat
Fuck me them servicemen just keep getting dumber and dumber.

>Le Super Tucano can replace the A-10
A-10 being slow is a meme, it's one of the faster jets that we have, not to mention how low it flies. Against sandniggers with no MANPADS, this is a good defense. Super Tucanos are slow as shit and will easily get blasted out of the sky like it's 1942 and there's only one fucking plane in the sky. Also good luck finishing that sortie when you have half a wing missing and you're not in an A-10

Politicians want the A-10 gone because its old. Well guess what, the A-10 is basically just as old as the fucking Abrams, and we're not sbout to replace that fucking thing

the navy shipped them out, they want to ship them back. all the maintenance is on the boat. plan A is always going to be "land on the boat". and that means they accept carrying fewer bombs in order to give them more go-arounds when they try to trap before they need to hit up the tanker.

i don't get why this is so hard to understand. there were only a few land-based hornets, and they didn't do much. dude i was there.

in what fucking world is the A-10 fast

>anything other than B1

When it's over 100mph faster than the fucking Super Tucano

it's slow compared to all of the other CAS assets out there besides the B-52 when i was in theater.

i don't count the rotary wing because i know they stage from a lot closer.

id still like to have a fleet of them. ten years after the nukes go off, everything has been hit by emps, and anti air missiles are rare they would be tight just because they are so simple and reliable.

>Being this much of a memeing speglord

ad hominem? boomer/middle school tier.

Fuck off, nothing you said was actually true, but you repeated it from your meme sources anyways.

simple and reliable? how is that not true? compared to maintaining an f35.

maybe because they stopped making A-10 parts?

you can't run down to Pep Boys for an oil filter for an A-10

>Fuck-off complex dual hydraulic system
>Built like a 4th gen (fuck the maintainers, we're just going to run everything where it will fit neatly)
>Slow design means it's guaranteed to get shot the fuck up and get grounded another 6 months for repair

Scorpion was already eliminated from the OA-X competition.

The answer is B-1s and Mudhens

By what standard is the A-10 one of the faster jets in service? Lol

Haha nigga u dumb

Even better.

Attached: F35CVX23-141103-O-ZZ999-004b.jpg (2096x1300, 1.55M)

Beast mode F35

Attached: realamerican.jpg (792x927, 131K)

B-1B