Isn't the A-10 superior to helicopters? So why don't we develop them further instead?

there is a reason as to why they replaced the a10 with f16 in iraq you know..

Nah, they do provide lift. Its a cheap fuel saving method

>assymetrical warfare
So lets get rid of it, we'll only ever fight insurgencies in the ME.

But... hi there!

Attached: tucano.jpg (1200x798, 63K)

they dont provide any sort of meaningfull lift generation for a typical hellfire loadout AH 64 it will need almost double the wing span on the lower speeds it travel

Compared to the F/A-18 it has longer legs i.e it can get somewhere farther and stay there for longer, it carries alot more useful payload and its canon is still a selling point, its alot more accurate then an air-to-air oriented canon on a fighter aircraft due to its barrels literally being a 3rd the length of the aircraft, for soft targets (Trucks, IFVs and troop concentrations) its better then a 20mm.

>inb4 speryfag
Because everyone who isnt retarded is a speryfag

Why don't they make an A-10 that's also helicopter?

Attached: tegaki.png (400x400, 10K)

Because the A10 isn't just for ground support. It's a ground attack plane with high payload, long operational flights, and extreme effectiveness versus soft and hard targets.

For surgical strikes maybe you might prefer F-18's or F-16's, or for close air support for allied infantry elements an attack helicopters may be better (not that A-10's don't also do this all the time) but for engaging a mix of tanks, troop carries and infantry there simply isn't a better plane for getting it all done.

I'd argue the A6 could do it just as well, it would be fucked after it runs out of the fucktarded amount of bombs it carries though, and this is from someone that honest to fucking god would fuck an A10 if it was a person.

The growler would be the better option for strictly hard targets with how many missles it can carry, but the A10's cannon can pretty much take care of any soft to moderately armored target it comes across and then still have plenty of bombs and missles for heavily armored targets.

Isn't that basically the Apache?

The apache fires it's 30mm chain gun at 625 RPM.

The A10 fires it's 30mm cannon at 3,900 RPM.

>Isn't the A-10 superior to helicopters

Actually, it isn't.

what reason?

only for one area of the war because it was a cancerous flakbed

The thing the A-10 Warthog gets right is being retardedly cheap to manufacture/maintain, and puts the fear of God into the enemy by getting in close and unleashing psychological hell. Whereas an attack helicopter will stay at maximum standoff distance and kill very precisely. Also the A10 carries a much larger payload.

>gets pwned by small arms fire

Can the A-10 mount gun pods? Have they ever just sent out an A10 with all of its hard points being gun pods?

I need to know this for very important scientific reasons.

lol apache pilots are dumb

people always bring up small arms like its kryptonite to helicopters and they just cease to exist when they are nearby

they are more vulnerable to them than, say, planes are
but its certainly safer to be in an apache than it is on the ground

even older models like the super cobra have shown a degree of surviviability even in high-threat environments through the use of speed and cover in order to cover their approach and reduce exposure

Can't rape the willing user
uwu

>puts the fear of God into the enemy by getting in close and unleashing psychological hell
We should bring back the Spooky, just for the middle east.

Videogame larper thinks he knows anything.

>vidya
Yep, it’s a retard

Retard. A10 isn’t going to do bda so have fun humping up that mountain to confirm kills. Also, you’re not qualified to direct fixed wing on target. Rotary will just come down, talk to you informally and kill whoever is shooting at you.

Attached: 40C8B92E-5F0A-4289-A839-7220D676B5A0.jpg (1500x1000, 379K)

>retardedly cheap
>$11,500 per flight hour

Cheap, if you’re a total retard.

>heli with a 30mm cannon

Attached: baa0fafba4d2ed6a0808bddc7858af39.png (1162x850, 36K)

He's obviously talking about attack helicopters, stop being obtuse.

>The radome's raised position enables target detection while the helicopter is behind obstacles (e.g. terrain, trees or buildings).
>The AN/APG-78 is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 128 targets and engaging up to 16 at once; an attack can be initiated within 30 seconds.
>A radio modem integrated with the sensor suite allows data to be shared with ground units and other Apaches, allowing them to fire on targets detected by a single helicopter.

An Apache LB can sit behind a mountaintop, see your shit, designate that shit for other vehicles, and destroy 16 of them, all without exposing anything more than the radome.

Attached: apache.jpg (931x642, 97K)

Alright, now crunch the numbers on the other airframes. I'll wait.

The Apache does have a 30mm cannon.

Any helicopter with a weapon on it will perform attack runs if the pilot sees troops in contact. And an attack bird will still do route recon and bda if you ask. Literally the infantry’s best friend.

>if it was a person

>helicopters are far cheaper

Attached: 1518419243395.png (474x711, 90K)

apaches are 10 million cheaper than a-10s faggot

And have a massive logistics tail, are massive maintenance hogs and have a readiness level about a magnitude lower.

>looking at unit cost instead of uptime and maintenance costs

#1 on the list of traits idiots give themselves away by. troll better next time, user

A-10 is ~$17,716 per flight hour. AH-64 is ~$3,851.

Attached: price-to-fly_(no22).png (1657x1811, 443K)

wow, could A10fags be btfo any harder?

this looks shopped.

the pixels etc

Lift is lift faggot. They're not supposed to actually lift the fucking heli on their own.

When are we getting the next-gen attack helis? It's been half a century since the Apache.

Patlabor called. They got you covered.

Attached: patlabor.gif (500x271, 930K)

Why? It's main gun is full ridiculous recoil and effectiveness. Anymore and the thing could not fly. Now maybe they might need to BRRTT for a long time but any other BRRTT is not the good true BRRTT. So when a A-10 runs out of BRRTT it flies home to refill with BRRTT!

Attached: the-gau-8-avenger-fires-up-to-sixty-one-pound-bullets-a-32684832.png (500x397, 114K)

We'll get them when the current gen stops being effective

The Apache figure always seemed suspect to me. Just look at these figures, where the Apache actually exceeds fighter jets. grandlogistics.blogspot.com/2010/11/aircraft-operating-costs.html. Might be an artifact due to the way the different branches calculate these things, a problem the Bongs don't have.

Your link is broken.

Attached: nnn.png (485x320, 5K)

Err, try not pasting in the full stop after the html?
It should also be noted that the A-10 has three times the pylons and four times the payload by weight,

That sounds bro-tier as fuck.
Seems like you speak from experience, any stories?

its primary purpose is to carry more ordinance.
they do produce lift but its not a reliable amount given their angle of attack when flying at speed, and of course lift is proportional to speed.

That's a cost/hr. I expect a jet popping in for a minute to BRRRRT a specific spot and fuck off home would incur fewer flight hours than a helo running support for a sustained period.
If an AH-64 hangs around a mere five minutes to the A-10's 60 seconds, it becomes equivalent in cost.

> jet popping in for a minute to BRRRRT a specific spot and fuck off home would incur fewer flight hours than a helo running support for a sustained period.

Popping in for a minute to hit pre-designated shit is shit tier CAS. Hanging around to find and kill targets on your own is actually good CAS...which is where the muh turboprop argument comes from in the first place. turboprops have better loiter time than helicopters without the soda straw problems of drones.

Attached: 1393969930267.jpg (1728x1134, 272K)

>Popping in for a minute to hit pre-designated shit is shit tier CAS
Pro-tip: that's how the vast majority of CAS missions are done. Troops on the ground highlight a target with a laser, and then an F-16 flies over and drops a J-DAM on it.

false, they provide lift and its most effective when the helicopter has the greatest translational lift [at faster speed]. The rotors provide the translational lift the faster it goes decreasing the negative AOA making the stubbed wings more effective and mostly negating the weight of carried munitions. Its not so much a fuel saving method as it is a way to keep speed and provide structural support to ordinance in a heavy bank. I'd say thats more than reliable lift.

Works fine for me. You probably copypasted it with extra dot.

According to bongloids, E-3D Sentry is cheaper to operate than Apache per flight hour. That is somewhat doubtful.

only because the last AT i talked to said they dont clean out the APU Exhaust.

Predator $1500/flight hour

hmmmmm...