3 ms·

> > A10 can fly low enough and slow enough... ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. > What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apa

> > A10 can fly low enough and slow enough... ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. > What I’m not sure about is why aren’t they using Apaches, Comanches, Scorpions (all helicopters) etc instead for close air support? I don't think the USAF operate these platforms do they?

imglorp 5y ago
Vs helos: A-10 can carry 16,000 lbs of ordinance alone, including that brrrt stuff and 2000 lb bombs. AH-64 can carry 8,000 lbs, including fuel.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Yea but helicopters have their own advantages. So you’re trading some things like payload for maneuverability. Helicopters also don’t need a runway. Etc.
masklinn 5y ago
> ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. Which is a big concern when… not fighting either.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  A lot of military planning is increasingly pivoting towards being prepared for peer or peer+ adversaries.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    It can't pivot towards that since it hasn't done anything else since 1945. The US has spent 75 years preparing to fight peer adversaries while fighting asymmetric guerillas. Especially the AF.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      But still running the A-10 is a good example of where that’s not true.
      - masklinn 5y ago
        The A-10 was originally designed as a CAS and tank killer for the invasion of western europe by eastern troops and armor. It was never designed to fight against guerillas. The AF is still running the A-10 because they've not managed to get rid of it yet — not for lack of trying, but because when they try the army suggests taking it off their hands and if there's one thing the AF likes less than CAS, it's the idea of the Army getting fixed-wing units.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. It'd have absolutely no chance of getting that close to an advancing Russian force.
        masklinn 5y ago
        > Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? Which does not matter because it's not a role anyone actually needs. > It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. Which has not actually been needed in 75 years, unlike a weapon system suitable for use in asymmetric conflicts.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        If you're of the opinion there is absolutely no possibility we'd ever have to fight a peer/+ adversary, then your position makes sense. But nobody serious responsible for managing our defence thinks that. Hence why the capability needs to be upgraded.

imglorp 5y ago

Vs helos: A-10 can carry 16,000 lbs of ordinance alone, including that brrrt stuff and 2000 lb bombs. AH-64 can carry 8,000 lbs, including fuel.

ericmay 5y ago
Yea but helicopters have their own advantages. So you’re trading some things like payload for maneuverability. Helicopters also don’t need a runway. Etc.

masklinn 5y ago

> ...to get annihilated by Russian or Chinese air defences. Which is a big concern when… not fighting either.

chrisseaton 5y ago
A lot of military planning is increasingly pivoting towards being prepared for peer or peer+ adversaries.
- masklinn 5y ago
  It can't pivot towards that since it hasn't done anything else since 1945. The US has spent 75 years preparing to fight peer adversaries while fighting asymmetric guerillas. Especially the AF.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    But still running the A-10 is a good example of where that’s not true.
    - masklinn 5y ago
      The A-10 was originally designed as a CAS and tank killer for the invasion of western europe by eastern troops and armor. It was never designed to fight against guerillas. The AF is still running the A-10 because they've not managed to get rid of it yet — not for lack of trying, but because when they try the army suggests taking it off their hands and if there's one thing the AF likes less than CAS, it's the idea of the Army getting fixed-wing units.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. It'd have absolutely no chance of getting that close to an advancing Russian force.
        masklinn 5y ago
        > Right but you get why it's not even remotely suitable for that role now? Which does not matter because it's not a role anyone actually needs. > It's no longer a weapon system that's suitable for use against peer/+. Which has not actually been needed in 75 years, unlike a weapon system suitable for use in asymmetric conflicts.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        If you're of the opinion there is absolutely no possibility we'd ever have to fight a peer/+ adversary, then your position makes sense. But nobody serious responsible for managing our defence thinks that. Hence why the capability needs to be upgraded.