yeah they're old as shit and the A-10 is really expensive to maintain

they've been trying to for years now

>>64828442
Dumbass, my state is phasing out the A-10 right now for the strike eagle.

You are fucking retarded.

>>64828442
the F-15 isn't being retired
the E is being replaced with the EX

>>64828681
>>64828711
learn to read dipshit.

>>64828442
Well the mudhen still has some years left in her, yeah? Isn't that what we sold to the jews for their planes, a massive upgrade kit for their old Es? A10 really should retire, she's cool and I will always love her but God above she needs to quit while she still has a mostly positive reputation

File: Arma3-wipeout-00.jpg (246.3 KB)

246.3 KB JPG

The a-10 fleet is being cut in half, with the other half being scrapped for parts. It's not retiring yet, but it's on life support.

>>64828442
A-10 yes, F-15 fuck no lol

we should scrap the A-10 because buying more F-35s that can't fill the role as effectively doesn't prop up the MIC

>>64829123
We saw in Venezuela that air defense is a meme, with all those choppers flying around like they owned the airspace. An A-10 could operate in that space and provide sustained support for a long time.

>dude A-10 so cool it's totally still 1990 BRRRRT
Long retired

>>64829123
Well you're not wrong, the F-35 is unable to fulfill the A-10's role of being comically slow and easy to shoot down

>>64829137
they look cool and are super effective, they were going to be retired but all of the people that actually fight wars on the ground lobbied to keep them in service after seeing what would replace them.

>>64829142
>and are super effective
*As long as the enemy somehow has absolutely no air defence capability

>>64829144
what enemy has air defense capability?

>>64828442
F-15Es still have a few more years in them but the A-10 airframes are better scrapped at this point, with a return to conventional warfare, and a workable (but overpriced) replacement in the COIN role found, which was the only role IMO they still excelled at. Hell even in that role, with how their upkeep costs have ballooned, it was kinda hard to justify.

>>64829150
lol u tk him 2da bar|?

>>64829124
>we saw [in one of the poorest most destitute countries in the world with barely a semblance of a military at this point] that air defense is a meme
>BTW ignore the SEAD campaign supported by CIA moles in every corner ahead of this whole thing

>>64828442
Wait, why the fuck would they retire the E model? There aren't nearly enough EX airframes operational yet.

>>64829194
They want to phase out the oldest ones that have the shittier original engines, as they’re relatively less useful and getting up there in age

They are building new A-10's and giving them all of the bells and whistles of cutting edge tech upgrades, the ability to detect and destroy threats from a hundred miles away and still be able to execute close combat support while taking take a beating.

>>64828442
>A-10
Yes, any airspace it can operate in can be serviced by much cheaper turbo-props.
>F-15
No, it's the fastest strike fighter in US service and that speed is very useful for increasing the range of standoff munitions.

The A-10's purpose is it's ability to loiter for a long time without needing to refuel and to be called in and attack within minutes.

>>64829228
Predator drones are better at that.

File: GBU-39.jpg (603.9 KB)

603.9 KB JPG

>>64828442
A-10 probably should be. I think the Avenger is cool as fuck, but it's efficiency even in permissive airspace is questionable given that cheap PGMs like APKWS and small diameter bombs exist. Maybe there's an argument for the low flight hour cost/being reliable, but that's increasingly getting shaky given how ancient/hard to maintain the airframes are getting.

>>64829236
not in real time, and predator drones don't carry the GAU-8

>>64829238
I don't see why, the A-10 has the wing space and ability to carry an ungodly amount of any assortment of armaments, definitely more than the F-35.

>>64829241
The GAU is an overrated meme weapon

>>64829248
you are a gay retard that doesn't know shit

>>64829247
The F-35 has the ability to not be shot down by a hand-aimed ZSU-23

>>64829249
You should go back to r/4chan

>>64829256
do you need a hugbox where nobody calls you on how fucking stupid you are?

>>64829260
Do you need a hugbox where people pretend the A-10 isn't obsolete?

>>64829261
nope, but you can't give me a valid reason that it is other than stupid reddit level reasoning and simping for buying overpriced shit that doesn't effectively fill the role.

There is no way they would make any new A-10.

>>64829271
They are, it's the Super Warthog.

>>64829265
It's slow
It's non-stealthy
It's more expensive than turbo props without offering any significant advantage
PGMs have made the gun about as relevant as a sword
It was designed for a task that no longer exists (attacking armoured columns lacking air defence)

>>64828442 The A-10 should be retired since the airframes are showing signs of cracking.

>>64829279
It doesn't need to be stealthy, it is combat support.

File: 571268900_10240702236396053_1038129481710682275_n.jpg (22 KB)

22 KB JPG

>>64829247
>I don't see why, the A-10 has the wing space and ability to carry an ungodly amount of any assortment of armaments, definitely more than the F-35.
That might be an argument in favor of retaining the A-10 if the US wasn't actively manufacturing multiple types of 4.5 gen fighters that basically can do the same thing. Going forward if you want a non-stealth bomb truck, the answer is probably to order more new build F-15EXs or F-16 Vipers. Not MacGuyver the A-10s to keep flying for a couple more decades.

>>64829285
And the other damning points?

File: 1763228074329193.jpg (114.5 KB)

114.5 KB JPG

>>64829290
can't loiter, can't hover at low speed below deck without stalling and crashing, costs a mid level countries GDP to maintain. A-10 is the AK-47 of planes.

>>64829290
we should get rid of attack helicopters too then, dumb retard.

>>64829305
In a peer conflict, correct

>>64829311
we don't have a peer, sorry china and russiaboo's you are ngmi

File: 600px-F16-GBU39.jpg (33.8 KB)

33.8 KB JPG

>>64829300
>A new build F-16 is a le maintenance hog!
>Unlike our 40+ year old airframe
The existing A-10s are too old for the budget bomb truck arguement to make sense.

>>64829173
I was JUST thinking about this meme yesterday, for the first time in at least a decade

GET.
OUT.
OF.
MY.
HEAD.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>64829322
they already have 200 new air frames ordered from the last budget

>>64829247
B-1s did more CAS work than the A-10s did in Iraq. Now THAT is an ungodly amount of firepower.

>>64829391
the infantry didn't think so.

>>64829404
>the infantry didn't think
Correct

>>64829404
Infantry thought anything with a gun was an A-10 when it was actually F-15s

>>64829421
F-35's can't take off on short make shift fields behind the lines to support infantry, I think you are just a dumb retard that believe lobbyist bullshit. I think you are dumber than the sand in Afghanistan.

>>64829426
While the F-35B is completely retarded it can do that.

>>64829431
it can't do what the A-10 does without stalling and crashing, it is also costs 100x what an A-10 does to do the same job.

>>64829435
How does a VTOL plane stall?

>>64829436
low airspeed no lift, A-10 is a glider with a gun.

>>64829220
yeah, and they're calling it the F-35

>>64829442
no, it's literally a brand new modernized A-10

File: message-editor_1613582920074-at-6-e-demo.jpg (458 KB)

458 KB JPG

Don't let A-10 boomers see a turboprop, or their heads will explode trying to explain why the A-10 is a superior alternative

>>64829448
I guess you just like paying taxes for inefficiency and government bloat, maybe you are dumber than a boomer

>>64829446
what's it called?

>>64829464
Super A-10 Thunderbolt II Warthog

>>64829305
We are, army aviation is massively downsizing.

File: 1739662177711399.jpg (67.4 KB)

67.4 KB JPG

>>64829476
nice

File: 1755567247891740.jpg (97 KB)

97 KB JPG

https://youtu.be/NvIJvPj_pjE

File: 1741982725658464.jpg (100.1 KB)

100.1 KB JPG

>>64829476
https://youtu.be/vwT0isx4cFY

>>64828442
In the Year of Our Lord 2026, the A-10 does not have a radar.

>>64829228
B-1B are better at that

>>64829566
no it isn't

>>64829476
>>64829524
>not calling it the Super A-10 Thunderbolt III Warthog II

>>64829322
His AK-47 analogy is really spot on.
Great when it came out. Now obsolete and only "cheap" due to long since forgotten capital expenses.
No mention of the wing rebuild price.

>>64828442
The A-10s are ancient and only really useful in COIN. The youngest of the original Mudhens are only 25 years old and still have some service hours left in them, plus they can handle modern opponents as long as they have jamming/SEAD support.

Heres a free >>64829573

How many flight hours do the F-15E have on em

>>64828442
Jesus fuck, put it out of its misery already.

>>64829546
ai slop nigger retard

The Su-25 won.

If we can suppress air defenses enough for those choppers in Venezuela, then A-10 is still useful.

Give the A10 to Ukraine ffs

>>64829173
based

>>64829816
>An A-10 gets splashed
>Russians make a million posts saying they destroyed America's mightiest plane
Are you sure about this?

>>64829886
They'd only be useful as back-line APKWS trucks for defense against Shaheds anyway, and probably not even as good as helicopters. On the other hand, thee USAF has a bunch of them and shouldn't have any, so they might as well do something useful.

>>64829816
They don't need yet another airframe to train pilots on that offers nothing over what they already have.
Forget the airframes and just send them the GAU-8s with every round of 30×173mm we can find, lets see what monstrosity they create.

>>64829294
Do you think you are going mach fuck speeds providing ground support?

>>64829548
Why. Do. You. Need. Radar. To. Provide. CAS? Retard.

>>64829816
They said early in the conflict they don't want them. Maybe that mindset would be changed now that they wouldn't need to operate in contested airspace, but it should tell you how dogshit the A-10 is that they didn't even want them for free

>>64829919
The airspace is still extremely contested thanks to the USSR leaving both sides a million SAMs.

>>64829962
I should have finished my thought by making it clear that they could be used in a Shaheed hunting duty with APKWS as a previous anon noted, but they're expensive per flight hour for that duty.

>>64828442
We need F-15s still because the thousands of F-22s that we were supposed to have now to replace them with did not happen and now cannot happen.

>>64829964
For that role crop dusters are unironically better.

>>64829907
All-weather capability? Ground mapping? You know radars are used for more than air-to-air right? The B-1B has a radar you know?

>>64829968
Yea, but you have to buy a crop duster so it's a question of if flight hours are expensive enough to offset not having to pay for the airframe, especially since mounting a hydra pod and targeting pod is probably going to make the crop duster non-standard enough to be expensive. The US COIN crop duster shows that math clearly does work out at some point, but it's probably not as clear cut in this case cause you can run the A-10s into the ground because no thing needs to be bought to replace it.

>>64829976
True, might be worth sending A-10s not to fight but just to be avionics donors so you can convert more crop dusters.

What does an A10 do that a Helicopter can't do? If you want something to loiter around in an area with no anti-air, an attack helicopter may be better, wouldn't it?

>>64829906
Why don't you respond to
>It's more expensive than turbo props without offering any significant advantage
and give an actual argument for why it's better than a turboprop, other than
>we paid ungodly amounts to rewing A-10s like retards instead of retiring them and buying some souped up cropdusters for a fraction of the cost

>>64829986
Bad example, choppers have terrible loiter. A better example is the insane endurance / loiter of big drones like the MQ-9 Reaper.

>>64828442
Yes to the A-10 no to the F-15. The latter is able to carry a ton of munitions providing an effective supplement to F-35s after the suppression of enemy air defenses, carrying out strikes with precision munitions.

>>64828442
I think you should buy more F-15EXs

>>64828442
All remaining F-15C's were retired from active duty last year.

>>64828442
NEVER!!!!

>>64829907
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_ground_surveillance
Target acquisition.

We've known radar can detect surface targets ever since WW2 when we used radar for fire control. We know that armored vehicles show up on radar like they're covered in shiny foil. We know that using the Mk1 eyeball for target acquisition Sucks. We know the F-111 Aardvark had a radar solely for terrain following and that proved to be essential for low altitude flights in pitch black nights.

>>64828442
You can't afford to field anything newer, declining empire.
Best hold on to what you have for as long as you can.

A-10s should be given to ukies to be used as slow flying drone killers. Simple as.

>>64830536
aren't they super expensive to run? seems like they'd be a white elephant when there's much better planes for the job

>>64830549
to clarify, I mean expensive relative to alternative airframes that could be used for the job

"CAS" has no reason to exist anymore, observation drones and land based missiles completely replace them

>>64828470
>Air Force wanting to get rid of the A10
>Army offering to buy the scraps so it can now CAS fully on its own.
>Achtually we will keep it in service. For now.

>>64830552
>>64830549
Well, some SuperTucano planes would probably make more sense financially, but where can they get them lol.

File: you have to take all the warthogs.png (225.5 KB)

225.5 KB PNG

Give them to Ukraine
>but they don't want them
GIVE THEM TO UKRAINE

>>64829448
>Let's make a plane for a war from the past

>>64830609
Ukraine would be better off if they got those new cropdusters, for shooting down drones.

>>64830609
They want them. They didn't want them when they were presented as an alternative for sending F-16s. They are okay with getting those to replace their Su-25s or just to use as drone hunters.

>>64830612
A hammer is a very old tool. Is it obsolete?

>>64830620
Hammer is a universal tool, meanwhile that cropduster was made specifically for the GWOT, a specific time frame that is already behind us.
Maybe it would be useful if burgers went after cartels in Mexico, but that's never happening.

File: gentleman zaluzhniy toasting watermelon.png (270.1 KB)

270.1 KB PNG

>>64830617
>They want them. They didn't want them when they were presented as an alternative for sending F-16s.
Not the dialog I heard - it was never pitched as a replacement for f-16s....that I am aware of.

I thought it was more that
>Iron Potato didn't want them
got replaced by SSsssirssskiiii
>Ssirsskyi wants them

>>64830620
Weapons are a very specific subset of tools. Unlike hammers and screwdrivers, there's always defenses being developed to defeat current weapons.

>>64829991
>>64829986
Loiter isn't what helicopters are for. They are for
>organic attack, interdiction and CAS for Army(they get to decide priority missions)
>forward deployment(they are separate from other assets hanging out in the rear)
>low level missions under air defense umbrellas
>deep penetration through terrain masking without needing either stealth or heavy SEAD work

>>64829142
>all of the people that actually fight wars on the ground
You mean John McCain and other boomers in Congress?

The A10 is "saved" by the same out of touch geriatrics that demand every naval vessel had a gun for "shore bombardment"

File: cs-cover.png (726.2 KB)

726.2 KB PNG

>>64831396
That's probably a big part of it. Congress is geriatric enough that there are older members who probably remember the days when the Reformers were actually considered semi-respectable figures. So of course they'd have a belly feel that the A-10 has to be retained for its gun run capacity no matter what.

>>64830612
You mean like the A-10?

>>64831396
>>64831527
it's ironic given the billions their various retarded ventures have cost the US taxpayer

File: FULp5jiXEAEnr29.png (983.2 KB)

983.2 KB PNG

>>64832257
>it's ironic given the billions their various retarded ventures have cost the US taxpayer
That's probably giving the Reformers too much credit. Part of why they were generally so butt mad is their pet projects generally never got seriously/done to their luddite specifications*. Hence why the spent so much time in the 80's whining to congress about how everything vaguely high tech had to be cancelled to save money. They caused a lot of problems but I'm not sure they ever were in a position to waste billions of taxpayers money.

*Like the Blitzfighter, cause apparently the A-10 had too much techno garbage in it.

>>64832364
Revolt of the Majors has the better part of a full chapter on the "Reformers".

File: DesertStorm.webm (2.9 MB)

2.9 MB WEBM

>>64832449
>Full chapter
I think it's more like 1/5th of the entire dissertation actually. You kinda need to spend a lot of time going over what they were actually doing to establish how utterly uninvolved with the actual procurement/doctrinal reforms during and after Vietnam that actually made the USAF pic related by Desert Storm. I think the author if anything was peeved at having to spend so much time talking about the self-aggrandizing retards.

>>64832364
Oh I didn't mean just the reformers, I meant the tards in congress who follow in their footsteps. The naval gunfire support requirement alone wasted billions. Not saying the navy couldn't have screwed up things in other ways, but a more true-to-the-original-concept SC-21 would've been useful to have

>>64832364
>I'm not sure they ever were in a position to waste billions of taxpayers money.
They got Congress to cancel the Zumwalt class and go back to building obsolete hulks. They also caused the Constellation fiasco by demanding changes to the LCS so far out of scope that not even a frigate could support them.

File: today I will call for some CAS support.png (338.3 KB)

338.3 KB PNG

The F-15 is still a highly capable strike aircraft and a great linebacker to the F-35/22. For example heavy PGM bombloads as well SEAD to help the stealth aircraft. Any sortie of F-35s will massively benefits from a larger flight of cast iron non-stealth niggas spamming decoys and firing ARMs to suppress sites and sow confusion to let the F-35s slip inside the best defended airspace like its a twink in the Russian army. Then once IADS is fucked the bombers (all well worn 4th gen aircraft) will stream in and do the real damage.

And the A-10 still has wings, a few airframe hours left and a lot more blue on blue incidents to do before it needs another midlife.

>>64829142
Against a stationary group of 10 tanks in a combat formation, an A-10 scored 1 non immobolizing hit in 3 passes. The gun is a meme.

>>64828442
Picture this...An A-10 but with 4 engines...

>>64829439
>the A-10 is a glider
No, not even remotely.
>>64830629
>a specific time fram that is already behind us
So exactly like the A-10?

>>64829183
sooo the a10 shouldn't provide support in uncontested airspace? it would be much cooler if it did

>>64829987
the a10 is cool and has a big gun. the turboprop is gay and doesn't have a big gun.
>but muh costs
who cares, make more a10s so they're not old as shit and a fortune to maintain
>buh buh we can't
yes you can, make more a10s.

>>64829448
>the a-10 is totally obsolete
>let's replace it with a slower, more fragile plane with less firepower
retarded on so many levels.

File: file.png (83.6 KB)

83.6 KB PNG

>>64829300
if stall speed is the distinguishing mark of an effective CAS aircraft, i think we should replace all of them with the fieseler storch w/ a guy in the back firing LAWs. you cannot get lower and slower than that except by rotary wing

>>64833422
the A-10 is already a piece of shit that can't survive today's environment, the only thing it's good for is COIN, may as well replace it with something that can do that same job just as well for a much lower price.

of course, we're out of the sandbox now, so it would actually make more sense to not buy a replacement for the A-10 at all and let go of the delusion that the concept still works in today's environment.

File: KORAL_Turkish_Electronic_Warfare_Vehicle_Credit.960_0_1.jpg (93.1 KB)

93.1 KB JPG

>>64829241
>not in real time
So we need the A-10 to provide loitering CAS in permissive airspaces that has been cleared of enemy air defenses...but is filled is filled with tons of advanced EW that would jam a Predator?

>>64830612
It's still superior to the average drone in just about every way.

>>64833639
It doesn't have as much loiter time, takes more maintenance per flight hour, and people complain when it gets shot down.

File: 1756593080730937.jpg (16 KB)

16 KB JPG

>>64833422

You don't understand boomer whispering.

The role of the A-10 would be completely replaced by 4th gen multirole aircraft like the F-15 and F-16. The Super Tucan would just be cheap show pig to make the gerontocratic government and the idiots who for them CAS doesn't exist unless it is coming in at low level to accidentally strafe them.

File: AC-130.jpg (145.7 KB)

145.7 KB JPG

>>64828442
For the one or two anons supporting the A-10, what about using a gunship instead?

>>64829075
Sad, each one of those should be turned into a monument.
>>64829236
No
>>64829248
Absolute Heresy, anon has never seen it liquidate a group of talishits.

>>64829391
I seen one drop a guided bomb on a towelhead running away from us after trying to plant an IED in the road at night after we smoked his two buds. Pretty impressive accuracy.
>>64829424
Pretty hard to miss a pair of A10's doing gun runs. Retard talking out his ass lol
>>64834967
Its probably more cost effective. As much as I love the A10, its original purpose was to kill russian tanks in a fulda gap type scenario and it was repurposed in GWOT as a towelhead exterminator.

>>64834967
Two different usecases for CAS. I would call neither better than the other.

>>64835348
100% of the A-10's mission profile overlaps with either the MQ-9, F-15, or AC-130.

>>64829816
Why do you want to sabotage Ukraine?

>>64835368
All of those are different. You're making the same argument as "helicopters are obsolete, everything should be drones and missiles because new good old bad".

>>64835402
he's not really. all of those are pretty old

drones = cheap + good loiter + great recon
ac-130 = all the guns grunts could want
f-15 = bomb and missile truck (and a gun if you're turboretarded)

the point is that, if you want to call in an a-10 for any reason, one of the above will work better and cheaper. they found that out when the b-1 did all the CAS work in afghanistan (which was not cheaper but it worked while the a-10 didn't). a-10 is simply redundant capability that is draining too much for what it's worth

>>64835402
No, I'm making the argument of "the A-10 is hopelessly obsolete, every possible role it could have filled has been superceded by better platforms for decades, and the Air Force should finally be allowed to retire the worn out shitcans." It's the battleship of the skies.

>>64835451
>>64835489
Venezuela proves this mentality to be wrong. The a-10 is like an apache that carries 3 times the loadout, moves 3 times faster, loiters 3 times longer.

>>64833480
>A-10 is already a piece of shit that can't survive today's environment,
Like helicopters?

Gotcha.

>>64836261
>>64836264
oh, are we talking about loadouts now? are you telling me the ac-130 and f-15 carry less ordnance? that the 130 and reapers loiter shorter? that the f-15's slower? if you think the a-10's useful because first-world EW can waltz over chinktrash AD, you might as well get a biplane. in fact that's basically what they did, since they used helicopters. if you CAN deploy an a-10, you will have better options, whether logistically or in terms of your "apache but better" performance self-delusion*. the plane is obsolete and if they'd used it in the operation it'd have friendly-fired the sof guys hauling maduro out, if its service record is anything to go by. maybe if they modernized it and restarted production it would have a niche again, but even so it'd be pretty slim margins...

*its loiter is not really anything to brag about, actually. since its combat range is identical to an apache, loiter time is undoubtedly nowhere near what you think it is - in fact the apache's almost certainly better, given it attains that range while slower (by about half, not a third), and will be able to deploy from farther forward. feel free to pretend it's better than it is though

>>64836339
>since its combat range is identical to an apache, loiter time is undoubtedly nowhere near what you think it is
>the apache's almost certainly better, given it attains that range while slower
Hahahahahaha! Dear Anon, you're daft.

>>64836348
maybe, idk, i should probably have considered ferry range too. i'm glad i gave you an easy out of the other points at least

File: 17338283838280919.jpg (614 KB)

614 KB JPG

>>64828442
How did the A-10's from the Skull Bangers do recently in Yemen and the Middle East?

>>64828442
>Should we retire the A-10 and F-15?

Id say give them to the national guard or somesuch.... pseudo-mothballs.