@ Airplanes Phil. That’s right, the 30mm cannon isn’t as effective against modern tanks, but it’s effective against nearly every other kind of target. The cannon is an extremely versatile weapon that can be used against most armored vehicles, bunkers, soldiers in the open, buildings, helos, etc. While it’s probably…

@ TheDramaLlamma. Again, great post. Let me just add this: the cost of upgrading and maintaining the A-10 is 2% of the USAF budget. 2 fcking percent. For 350 aircraft. How is that not a goddamn bargain?

Sweeper, you really have very little understanding of stealth tech. The aircraft must be perfectly sealed to deflect and absorb radar. Modern radar is so sensitive that it can detect and identify a seagull a hundred miles away. External stores on a stealth aircraft are the equivalent of going from headlights off to…

@ TheDramaLlamma

Great reply, Believelander. The A-10 is like the Abrams tank. The Super Tucano is like an up-armored HUMMV with a TOW missile launcher. Each has its place, and they complement each other, but one does not replace the other.

Exactly, wagnerrp. If we want to use prop plans for COIN, then we need to build something appropriate. I’d like to see something the size of the A-1 Skyraider, full armored with 4 x 25mm cannons in the wings and a shtton of ordinance hanging off the bottom. The Super Tucano is a nice, light COIN aircraft, but it just…

They are not antiquated. They’ve been upgraded multiple times. If you took an ‘84 Prelude and rebuilt a bunch of stuff on it, it would drive fine and compete just fine with the likes of any modern car in its class. Same with the A-10. They’ve all been upgraded to A-10C, with modern fire control, ECM, new HOTAS,…

The A-10 is overkill for the CAS role against ISIS, but it’s the cheapest, most rugged thing we’ve got. What would you prefer to fly, F-15s, F-16s? Much more expensive to arm, maintain, and operate hourly.

The grunts love ‘em. The A-10 pilots love flying CAS missions for the grunts. The people love ‘em. Congress loves ‘em. The only people that don’t love ‘em is the fcking Air Force brass. They go form over function every time.

Drones are the future, but they’re not ready for primetime yet.

The Airtractor was evaluated and found to be shit. If you’re going to go the light prop route, go either Super Tucano or T-6 Texan II. They’re both better designed and already vetted.

The 30mm cannon couldn’t even penetrate the front armor of tanks at the time it was built. That’s what Mavericks are for, and the A-10 can carry a dozen or more. The cannon is an extremely versatile weapon that can be used for destroying: outposts, bunkers, most other armored vehicles, helicopters, troops on open…

I really like what Textron is doing here. It’s a nice design, although it’s still a prototype that has yet to be vetted.

The A-10 does take longer to arrive on station, but has several advantages over the F-35.

Actually, external stores are precisely an off switch for stealth. Radar is extremely sensitive, and even doing something as simple as putting the gear down makes the plane visible by a couple of orders of magnitude. If you’re going to put external stores on an F-35, you may as well use an F-15 or F-16. They’ll look…

I think you’re confusing the OV-10 Bronco with the V-22 Osprey? The OV-10 is a twin prop plane that holds 2 people in tandem, no room for anyone else. It’s actually basically a twin-engine version of the Super Tucano.

It’s not antiquated at all. It’s the best CAS aircraft ever built. There’s still nothing superior to it. It still does the job, day in and day out, for a fraction of the cost of any other platform. Cheap is important when fighting these low-intensity actions against rogue groups. It continues to receive maintenance…

Although it’s a good complement to the A-10, the Super Tucano is too light of an aircraft to replace it. It carries less than half the ordinance, and it’s .50 machine guns are no replacement for the A-10's 30mm Gatling gun. The former can be stopped by a couple of sandbags while the latter can tear through reinforced…

No replacement is necessary. We have 300 A-10s in active service. They simply need to be maintained, a relatively inexpensive proposition compared to requisitioning a new aircraft. The B-52s built in the 1950s are expected, with maintenance, to fly until 2050. There’s no reason we can’t do the same for the A-10.

The point is tats are indicative of nothing. Wrong of you to bring it up.