Oh look, X is awash with a story about the F-35 again.
(media.scored.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
On the off chance this post doesn't attract people with very strong opinions on esoteric defense technology you have zero chance of understanding without actually either working for Lockheed or being in the Air Force, allow me to trigger the normies with truths you don't like to hear:
The A-10 is shit and always has been. The gun was designed specifically to take out T-55 tanks, the most common tank in the USSR's arsenal when the specs were laid down. A decade later, by the time the A-10 was fully combat operational, the T-55s had been replaced by significantly up-armored T-62 and T-64s, which halved the range the A-10 needed for the gun to stand an equivalent chance of effectivity that it was projected to against the T-55. Due to the USSR's similar advances in SPAAG and SAM technology, and the A-10s total lack of effective countermeasures, its entire tank-busting role was reduced to simply firing off AGM-65s from 12 miles away and running away. This exact same mission is similarly accomplished with an AH-64 Apache, an MQ-1, and later the MQ-9, all armed with Hellfire missiles that performed better than the AGM-65s ever did.
There's a reason nobody thought it was a useful aircraft until it was used to simply shoot mud huts containing illiterate retards who didn't possess even one single air defense weapon. Which is like saying that the Hi-Point C9 is a fantastic handgun when your only targets are coma patients.
Yep, the A10 and it's gun look and sound really badass (as does the prototype tank they built with that same gun) but is only really useful against soft targets in areas we already have full air superiority in. And for targets like that, probably way cheaper to just send a helicopter or drone.
Literally what happened.
The Army wanted the USAF to keep the A-10 because it's pretty useful for them (mostly because it's faster and longer-ranged than an Apache), but the USAF correctly said "you have the AH-64 for a reason".
And it's extremely expensive to keep the A-10 around for something that we don't even do anymore, seeing as how the 'strafe mud huts' wars have ended.
Once the MQ-9 hit the scene, the A-10 did basically nothing in Afghanistan. The entire CAS role was replaced by MQ-9s, which were much better at it, because they could see everything, all the time, with more endurance on station, and deliver weapons much more accurate and useful for the purpose than the A-10 could. It also made it much safer for the guys on the ground, because the MQ-9 can fire its weapons off-boresight, which means it can land Hellfires behind itself, just like the Apache could. If you're getting fucked up, the A-10 has to circle around, the TACP has to vector it in, it can't see shit so it may shoot you so it needs visual aids to find the target, and it has to circle around, do a BDA, and reengage. It's very time-consuming when seconds matter. The MQ-9 just watches the entire time and can let one off the rail at its leisure.
The problem with the MQ-9 is it's 100% worthless in an electronic warfare environment, and if it comes down to popping satellites, the entire fleet is grounded.
Yep, and there was even a time when the Super Tucano was being discussed as a potential A10 replacement, but it looks like it couldn't compete with Apaches and Reapers.
I actually liked the Super Tucano. Good looking aircraft.
It would've been interesting to have at the very beginning of OIF/OEF, but by the time it would've been spun up for service, the DOD already anticipated the missions there ending.
So there was no point in investing money and pilots into a platform that was only useful in a single environment. The military always looks to fighting 'the next war', and understandably, nobody sees the Super Tucano taking on the Chinese.