5 ms·

I'm not in the US, or even in a NATO country (yet, heh) and I read all the comments about how obsolete the A-10 is but I guess you're exaggerating a little for

by unwind 4y ago

I'm not in the US, or even in a NATO country (yet, heh) and I read all the comments about how obsolete the A-10 is but I guess you're exaggerating a little for dramatic effect. :) I'm pretty sure the A-10 would be at least "greatly annoying" to far heavier vehicles than unarmored trucks. The Gun [1] penetrates 76 mm armor at 300 m range, which would surely hurt a bit. I'm not sure how successive rounds interact with thicker armor, but would hate to be the one to find out on the ground. :/ I find it almost hard to believe that it can fire 65 rounds per second, where each round weighs almost 400 g, and all of that while flying. It's an incredible piece of Very Angry Engineering. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

Dalewyn 4y ago
The infantry on the ground also love the A-10 coming in to lay down support fire, it's a great morale booster. The US Army is even on the record that they would fly the A-10 themselves if the USAF retired them[1], which played in to USAF keeping the A-10 "indefinitely". >Sources say the Army is interested in obtaining A-10s should the Air Force decide to retire the twin-engine jets, which have been flying since the 1970s.[1] The A-10 is adored and respected by our service members, so it's absolutely not obsolete and not retiring any time soon. [1]: https://archive.ph/20130915210441/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004 https://archive.ph/20130915210441/http://www.defensenews.com...
justsomehnguy 4y ago
No matter how many people fap on Brrrrtt it's a 50 year old design currently capable only for running amok against guerillas with rusted AKs and allied supply convoys. Any theater with enough MANPADs makes A-10 an angry fireball on the ground.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Yeah, maybe you should tell the US Army and USAF then Because bith services like the A-10 enough to keep it around for a while. Thinking of it, do yoi think attavk helicopters are obsolete as well? Or MBTs? Just because there arebportable missiles out there that can hurt those?
  - detaro 4y ago
    That the US military keeps it around and uses it in places where they don't have air defenses or enemy aircraft to worry about isn't a particularly useful counter to the point that it has massive weaknesses against modern air defenses. You'll also notice that the US has lots of other planes for places where that worry exists.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      It is almost as if certain tools have certain use cases. And tgat an organization as large as the US military might what to have those tools for all the use cases they might run into. The answer? Don't use fighters vulnerable against modern AA against modern AA. Benefit of the A-10? Lower speed, longer loitering in CAS, something quite valuable in combined arms. And faster than attack helicopters, so A-10s can move faster between mission sites.
      - JohnBooty 4y ago
        It is almost as if certain tools have certain use cases. And tgat an organization as large as the US military might what to have those tools for all the use cases they might run into. As large as the military's budget is, it's not unlimited. Money spent on one thing is money they don't have for another thing. So people who point out the A-10's weaknesses aren't saying the A-10 has literally no value at all, because it clearly does. They're questioning the cost vs. the alternatives. Benefit of the A-10? Lower speed, longer loitering in CAS, something quite valuable in combined arms. And faster than attack helicopters, so A-10s can move faster between mission sites. Yes, the A-10 has some absolutely unique attributes and strengths. It's just that the viable use cases dwindle by the year as MANPADs get cheaper and cheaper. It's hard to find reliable sources, but you can apparently get them for under $100K. Think about the list of adversaries we might possibly fight who: 1. Are willing to challenge the US military in direct combat 2. Can't scrape together $100K for a rocket launcher 3. Don't have sympathetic allies that will be happy to give them rocket launchers for free in order to harass the US by proxy

by unwind 4y ago

Dalewyn 4y ago

The infantry on the ground also love the A-10 coming in to lay down support fire, it's a great morale booster. The US Army is even on the record that they would fly the A-10 themselves if the USAF retired them[1], which played in to USAF keeping the A-10 "indefinitely". >Sources say the Army is interested in obtaining A-10s should the Air Force decide to retire the twin-engine jets, which have been flying since the 1970s.[1] The A-10 is adored and respected by our service members, so it's absolutely not obsolete and not retiring any time soon. [1]: https://archive.ph/20130915210441/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004 https://archive.ph/20130915210441/http://www.defensenews.com...

justsomehnguy 4y ago

No matter how many people fap on Brrrrtt it's a 50 year old design currently capable only for running amok against guerillas with rusted AKs and allied supply convoys. Any theater with enough MANPADs makes A-10 an angry fireball on the ground.

hef19898 4y ago
Yeah, maybe you should tell the US Army and USAF then Because bith services like the A-10 enough to keep it around for a while. Thinking of it, do yoi think attavk helicopters are obsolete as well? Or MBTs? Just because there arebportable missiles out there that can hurt those?
- detaro 4y ago
  That the US military keeps it around and uses it in places where they don't have air defenses or enemy aircraft to worry about isn't a particularly useful counter to the point that it has massive weaknesses against modern air defenses. You'll also notice that the US has lots of other planes for places where that worry exists.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    It is almost as if certain tools have certain use cases. And tgat an organization as large as the US military might what to have those tools for all the use cases they might run into. The answer? Don't use fighters vulnerable against modern AA against modern AA. Benefit of the A-10? Lower speed, longer loitering in CAS, something quite valuable in combined arms. And faster than attack helicopters, so A-10s can move faster between mission sites.
    - JohnBooty 4y ago
      It is almost as if certain tools have certain use cases. And tgat an organization as large as the US military might what to have those tools for all the use cases they might run into. As large as the military's budget is, it's not unlimited. Money spent on one thing is money they don't have for another thing. So people who point out the A-10's weaknesses aren't saying the A-10 has literally no value at all, because it clearly does. They're questioning the cost vs. the alternatives. Benefit of the A-10? Lower speed, longer loitering in CAS, something quite valuable in combined arms. And faster than attack helicopters, so A-10s can move faster between mission sites. Yes, the A-10 has some absolutely unique attributes and strengths. It's just that the viable use cases dwindle by the year as MANPADs get cheaper and cheaper. It's hard to find reliable sources, but you can apparently get them for under $100K. Think about the list of adversaries we might possibly fight who: 1. Are willing to challenge the US military in direct combat 2. Can't scrape together $100K for a rocket launcher 3. Don't have sympathetic allies that will be happy to give them rocket launchers for free in order to harass the US by proxy