A-10

Dude, if the A-10 is a piece of shit do you honestly think the tucano is any better?
Its pike if you took A shit 10 and reduced its capabilities by 50%.

The F15 is so much better, its the best 4th generation fighter ever created.

Attached: F-15E_on_patrol_over_Afghanistan_-_081107-F-7823A-141.jpg (3000x1996, 730K)

True

Luckily tucanos are much smaller, cost next to nothing to run and need significantly less skilled pilots, so you can get twice as many in the air and still be winning.

The point is that since neither plane can survive against a near pear AA envelope, then the role that both planes are actually capable of providing is 'isometric-ONLY CAS'. And when it comes to isometic CAS, the a-10 is a total piece of shit, since it has absolutely no advantages over a cheap prop plane and many serious deficits (e.g. inferior handling, inferior loiter time, inferior reliability and cost etc.). There is literally no reason to use it.

Not him, but the Super Tucano is meant for COIN.

>500 knot strafing run
>only mini-BRRRRT
Fuck. That. Shit

The Skyraider, which the A-10 replaced, would almost be a better choice, especially in COIN.
But frankly the future is already here and it's the F35

>Either that or it would be sitting in a hanger in kadena waiting for the real fighters to gain air superiority.

Yes, air superiority DOES need to be gained before attack craft are allowed to fly in.... and your point?

this board is so retarded that bait threads are completely indistinguishable from genuine ignorancy. Fucking idiots.

>strafing run
>near peer opponent
Opinion discarded

>skyraider
>using TGP and dropping LGBs and firing Mavs and being used for CSAR

No.

No, screw you. The idea of CAS is outdated and why waste tax dollars on an entire aircraft when other aircraft can do the exact same thing and more without the need of air superiority?

>Either that or it would be sitting in a hanger in kadena waiting for the real fighters to gain air superiority
Except that it’s not a fighter and wasn’t designed to be, you fucking mong. You might as well say that the Virginia class is a piece of shit because it’s not a real aircraft carrier.

>ground attack and combined coordination with ground troops is outdated

please, continue

>Yes, air superiority DOES need to be gained before attack craft are allowed to fly in.... and your point?

The current US use cases is not mere air superiority - That implies you are superior but could be contested by enemy IADS and
The A-10 for strafing runs requires more than that - it requires complete air supremacy

The A-10 Using stand off precision munitions is using the same capabilities as F-16,F-15E and F-18s to increase the distance from danger
However the later airfames can make use of that increased range to enable evasion to slightly increase real survivability - The A-10 does not have the kinematics to achieve that and thus, against a near peer where we cannot ensure unilateral and complete air control, is objectively inferior to them

Literally better choice for CSAR you retarded fuck

>Except that it’s not a fighter and wasn’t designed to be
It was designed to be survivable verses point defense AAA assets in the 70's and 80's which where mainly 23mm SPAAG - Current AAA has evolved and is now 30mm with higher velocity, better throw weight or more commonly short range anti aircraft missiles

The difference between the A-10 and other ground attack capable aircraft is that it needs more than local air superiority, its off the table if there's minor ground threats. This happened in both Iraq wars.

No thats not what I meant I shouldn't have used the word CAS I misused it, what I mean is going in for gun runs and flyig at 10,000 feet is a bad, outdated idea also inb4 attack helicopters you know I mean only fix winged aircraft.

>pilot has no ability to use TGP, IR or advanced targeting and navigation
>'better'

Except that air superiority fighters haven’t really been useful in the wars we’ve actually fought in the past 45 years. How many air to air engagements have we actually had since Vietnam? Four or five, maybe? Here’s a idea - why don’t we concentrate on buying weapons that are useful in the kind of wars we actually fight? Crazy, I know.

Oh, and BTW, we will never fight another war in which air superiority is a major factor. You don’t need air superiority to drop bombs on illiterate Muslim peasants, and any war against a country even somewhat resembling a peer would go nuclear in a day or two, making everything else a moot point.

I never said it was a fighter you muppet, my point is why do we hold on to the A10 every fighter in the U.S.A.F arsenal can do its job and more.

Time to go to bed old man.

Attached: 1522020700796.jpg (2880x1920, 863K)

Sure, and a Cessna 172 *can* do its job too. Just nowhere near as well. And that’s the point. The search for one airframe that will do everything has been a Pentagon holy grail for decades. But it’s never really worked, and it never really will.

No! Every fighter jet in te USAF can do the A-10's job just as well as the A-10.

>skyraider
>better at anything than a modern A-10

lol

Attached: 150902-F-OX377-197.jpg (2700x1802, 3.41M)

Except maybe the F22 it can only hold 2 JDAM's.

The F-18, Rafale and Typhoon are all better. The Eagle's gigantic RCS kills it.

Well than why hasn't a single F15 ever been shot down?

No shit. It's just a meme plane that people love because of BRRRRRRT. Anyone who actually thinks it's relevant in a peer to peer conflict is smoking shitty weed. Shit it even sucks at anything that isn't shooting up mudhuts it's probably more likely to blue on blue than any other platform.

Fuck it, we'll replace all CAS with motorized hang gliders and satchel charges because it costs less

It never clashed with a peer or competent opponent. Note how I didn't mention any slavshit in my previous post.

>Except that air superiority fighters haven’t really been useful in the wars we’ve actually fought in the past 45 years
Because there has not been a near peer war in that long

>Here’s a idea - why don’t we concentrate on buying weapons that are useful in the kind of wars we actually fight? Crazy, I know.
There needs to be room for both
If we fail to prepare for a peer in military performance we cede the victory

>Oh, and BTW, we will never fight another war in which air superiority is a major factor
It only seems a non issue as we ensure it's uncontested
If the Iraqi's where allowed to sortie during the 2nd gulf war casualties would have doubled over night

>any war against a country even somewhat resembling a peer would go nuclear in a day or two, making everything else a moot point.
Unlikely - The threat only carries weight while the last nuke is in living memory
The Ukraine proves that

This is what delusion looks like

Having seen CAS performed by these up close, and inspected the wreckage after, I feel that the A10 is uniquely suited to tje exact role it performs. Tank smashing, vehicle destruction, and entrenched buildings. The pissant little .50 cal miniguns are nothing compared to DU 20mm at 3K RPM.

Cope.

Neither did any of the planes you listed. The F15 climbs higher, goes faster, and carries more armament than any plane you listed. The F15 is also the only plane to shoot down a satellite. Plus the 104-0 combat record isn’t a fluke. So basically you’re talking out of your ass.

The only one coping is you. To say the F15 isn’t the greatest 4th gen fighter is confirmed retarded.

>Having seen CAS performed by these up close, and inspected the wreckage after, I feel that the A10 is uniquely suited to tje exact role it performs.
While your service is apreciated you are objectively wrong - They where suited to it 35 years ago but war has advanced

>Tank smashing, vehicle destruction, and entrenched buildings.
Any aircraft can do that - that is the joy of PGMs

>The pissant little .50 cal miniguns are nothing compared to DU 20mm at 3K RPM.
This is now either bait or speaks against you - The A-10 has a 30mm cannon, almost all fighters have 20mm vulcans but even the A-10 rarely makes use of its gun against anything but very soft targets

Yeah, 2 is next to 3. I did not proofread.

>While your service is apreciated you are objectively wrong - They where suited to it 35 years ago but war has advanced

A-10s have advanced to the C model and are better than they ever have been. The enemy they're killing has remained 3rd world sandniggers.

>Climbs higher, goes faster
The Typhoon equals it, while also carrying a better radar and having better RCS. Meaning it would always initiate a engagement having a advantage. Same thing applies to the Hornet and the Rafale.

>Carries more armament
True

>Only plane to shoot down a satellite
I don't know why it would apply in the argument, but it was only in a test environment

But yeah its has the most impressive service record though.

>evading anti air

Brrrrt hog does not evade, it only uses swiss-cheesing as a form of weight reduction. And for extra cool-points when it lands with one engine, one wing, and the pilot holding the two together.

The A-10 is bad because it's overkill for low intensity conflicts like Afganistan but not survivable enough for combat against state militaries. The Tucano is intended purely for COIN and won't be forced into non-permissive airspace like the A-10 was.

>evading ant air

Yeah, it does it pretty easily by simply flying above it, ya know, the same way every other plane does

>It does the same job as other aircraft
>except it's slower, has less loiter time, less payload, and only one pilot
So it's inferior to the F-15E in every way other than muh gun, which doesn't even matter if it's staying at altitude?

>less loiter time

More actually, with a wider variety of payload.

Good post

Not more than them F-15E

Brrrrt fags are literal reddit tier posters

Attached: XQ-58A_Valkyrie_demonstrator_first_flight.jpg (3270x2173, 831K)

How pathetic is it to compare two planes that entered service in the 2000s with one from the 70s though? 4.5 gen is a term for a reason.

>>Still have WWII vets alive.
>>hurr durr muh no near peer war

Shut the fuck up.

Lol muh moneydump to the rescue.

>>No! Every fighter jet in te USAF can do the A-10's job just as well as the A-10.

...at 10x the cost of an A-10.

It’s like talking to a wall. You’ll never acknowledge that we created this airframe many decades prior and it is serving the roles we assign it in an efficient manner.

It’s almost like the fucking tankies are scared and running cointelpro to try to get us to abandon our tank killer.

>one wing
One wing that still has to be replaced constantly and was redesigned three times in the first five years of service because Fairchild-Republic forgot that wings aren't supposed to fall off.
Face it, BRRRTfags, if the F-14 was too maintenance-heavy and could actually perform well as a strike fighter, the A-10 is just as bad if not worse.

30mm of depleted Uranium love...you’re the one smoking shitty weed.

F15 can also land with one wing.

Attached: BE0F51E3-9BB3-4083-89E5-3C25F28D6464.jpg (450x325, 158K)

>Here’s a idea - why don’t we concentrate on buying weapons that are useful in the kind of wars we actually fight? Crazy, I know.

You're an idiot, you prepare for the wars you can't afford to lose.

>piece of junk that would have its ass handed to it if shit that will never happen happened
I bet you think LAVs are dumb too, you fucking faggot.

So buy top tier air superiority fighters and ICBMs and spend the leftover pocket change on shit that will help you bully unruly third worlders. Not even saying the A10 is the best way to accomplish the latter, but why isn't that the best strategy?

>tank killer
It's not even particularly good at that.

F15 is objectively the best 4th gen fighter in the world. Period.

Wrong. Just wrong.

A10’s cannon has been used on Armored troop carriers, tanks, and buildings with amazing success.

Something about lobbing super dense DU rounds has every type of armor topped.

Are you just a COINTELPRO tankie?

...and Iraqi/Syrian/ISIS armor. Or did you forget that?

Captured MRAPs and leftover Russian armor is low intensity?

You mean it wouldn't be up there dogfighting with the fighter jets? Well it must be totally useless, you've sure convinced me user.

>and Iraqi/Syrian/ISIS armor
>what are 3rd world opponents

Yeah, they're still in permissive airspace. The worse ADS they have is MANPADS and those are fairly uncommon. Tucanos at 30k' with SDB's could handle it just as well.

F15E isn’t going to be used for CAS...it’s going to kill the radar/SAM sites at standoff range so the big iron can mosey in and fuck shit up.

Multi-role is .gov speak for increasing the budget of the Mil-Ind complex. Why else is the F35 so fucking expensive for sucking in all it’s multiple roles?

Watched this one on Discovery Wings...HOLY SHIT! F15 = rocketsauce.

Go ahead, name the tanks killed with the gun and not PGMs.

>Something about lobbing super dense DU rounds has every type of armor topped.
Protip: The gun is rated for a specific amount of armor.
It's less than you think.

WWII vets still live.

Don’t say it can’t happen.

>>not good at that

Prove it.

>>third world opponents
>>using near peer armor and weapons systems

US Air Force still gets pretty upset about s300 and s400 no matter who is controlling it.

True about permissive space, but you aren’t acknowledging that the airspace is always initially cleared by air superiority fighters and EWACS anyways by doctrine.

It’s almost like we designed shit to be good at its particular job on the battlefield.

>F-15E isn't used for CAS
>It's used for SEAD
Shut up retard

You should try reading what was typed, fuckstick.

*gets shot down by an AK*

>always cleared
Despite that being doctrine, USAF A-10's had to be withdrawn from fighting frontline Iraqi units in the Gulf War due to taking too many losses and too much damage. Their sorties were instead flown by F-16's, which were more survivable.

The A-10 is not able to operate in non-permissive airspace, and costs too much to justify it's over qualification in permissive airspace. The USAF echoes this opinion, which is why they're replacing it with Super Tacos, AT-6s, and F-35s.

also
>EWACS

>flyig at 10,000 feet is a bad

The Warthog flies at 100 feet, sperg

Retype your shitty, poorly explained argument so I can call you a retard again.

The History Channel is not a reliable source for information.

What are you smoking??? I wanna hit!

>>The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during Operation Desert Storm in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces.

theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-how-a-10warthogs-killed-23-iraqi-tanks-in-one-day-during-operation-desert-storm/

>>show me on the doll where the little hoggie hurt you.

>man with 0 historical knowledge thinks numbers support his position because he doesn't have the context to understand what they mean

A10s had less than half the kill rate of other interdiction aircraft, and took casualties at much higher rates.

best cas bird coming through

Attached: aero_ad_145.jpg (1800x1080, 247K)

6 losses of A10
5 losses of Harrier
3 Falcons
2 Eagles
>>mu-muh much higher rates.
>>let’s accuse others of a lack of historical concept whilst lacking basic math skills.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_combat_losses_of_United_States_military_aircraft_since_the_Vietnam_War

>A: 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 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." It was when we really started to go after the Republican Guard.
You're an idiot.

clearly all this means is we need to throw some JATO rockets onto A10s to increase their attack speed

Attached: CloseAirSupport_chart2B.jpg (595x1382, 301K)