MiG21bisFishbedL

That has not stopped them in the past. We have Russian, British, French, Ukrainian, Spanish, other A-10s. Same with the F/A-18, as well.

Well, that's about as good as your average trip to Vegas in terms of take!

Now *THAT* is a Christmas present.

Well, it's space-age, innit? It's like a TARDIS.

MiGs uh.. find a way.

I think you'll find it's bigger by 20, actually. Sources cited: me, I can count to 20 without taking off my shoes!

That comment about a dogfight made me giggle. That's some gamer scuttlebutt if there ever was one. The realization that the gun is useless on anything made past the 1970s always gets ignored because LMAO BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT. An A-10 wouldn't know if an F-16 was prowling around, let alone an F-35. There's no real means for the A-10 to detect traffic in the area outside of AWACS input. An opponent with IRST and good heaters would be able to engage and down the A-10 with ease.

I need it.

Have you played with the Hornet's more unique traits? Try yanking that nose around with FBW disconnected to get some ridiculous alpha. Try the Walleyes. Do some catshots and carrier landings. Viper is a better fit if you want to go wicked fast at all times (I definitely fall into that camp), but the Hornet is the veritable trickster; it always seems to have a card up its sleeve for almost every scenario you can throw at it.

And, that 40 foot (12 meters) grouping is an ideal spread. Conditions can make it better or worse. There's also the "splash zone" to consider. Those rounds hit and don't just disappear or imbed into the earth. A lot of them are going to shatter and send fragments flying every where. Of course, this is the case with every weapon, but the issue becomes more acute when we're talking about a constant stream of fire as opposed to a single launch. These are, admittedly, not the most important issues where the A-10 falls short on a modern battlefield. After all, it's been well established the gun isn't terribly effective and an A-10 does have other options to utilized. But, because it's slower and more vulnerable than any other option available to the USAF? It has a reduced value to planners and will find itself an auxiliary option.

Which ones? Most I've played use simplified flight models for AI to save on computational time. It's been common practice for a while to provide better performance. That said, the MiG-15 and MiG-21's AI FMs do need dire updating. The F-5 is not as bad as it used to be, but it could still stand for a little more adjustment at ace.

Surprise reveal and release of DCS MC-15 Cricri

Time since retirement isn't a terribly good metric of availability as most governments' defense apparatus doesn't prioritize transparency as other wings of government do. The idea of placing a time period on the declassification of certain equipment is alien to them. Bummer for us, really.

It would be nice to have some generic masked militiamen that sort of "escape" the clear cultural influence our current insurgent has.

Probably not. It's marketing being marketing.

Pedant mode activated: That's more of testudo than a phalanx.

What about Metallica, specifically the Master of Puppets era?

This. People grossly underestimate the work that'd go into an FC3 level module, assuming it'd be so much less despite ED and 3rd Party developers making it pretty clear that it isn't that much less than a full fidelity product.

Yes.

A supersonic telephone pole will end the day of any F-35 or A-10 it encounters. The difference is that the F-35 possesses a much better capability to avoid that when compared to an A-10, owing both to its maneuverability and superior ECM. It can also more effectively fight the site that hurled said supersonic telephone pole when utilizing its sensors and datalink. The F-35 is not truly replacing the A-10. The A-10 is just not survivable in a modern peer or near-peer conflict. Even in its heyday, conducting the mission it was expected to perform in the Fulda Gap, it was expected that Soviet SPAAGs and other air defenses would claim many, many, many A-10s. The worst case scenarios that I know of predicted about 50% total fleet loss to all causes in this situation. This is a predicted loss rate that's even worse than the F-105 loss rate over Vietnam. Most of those F-105s lost? Lost to SAMs. F-105s are also, obviously, much faster than an A-10. Basically, the A-10 would provide SAM operators with a very large NEZ when compared to something like a Viper or the F-35. Also, the whole climb, dive, fire thing doesn't really work when your airframe's rate of climb can be charitably described as "lazy." In that same situation, in which a Maverick strike is to be employed against a target while under the net of a SAM site (which is a horrendously bad idea to begin with, if your commander is hurling you at that target in anything short of a stealth aircraft, you should pour any drink you have out on your avionics and act none the wiser when you return for repairs), the F-35's stealth would allow the pilot to more readily find target, launch, and then it can utilize it's superior ECM to ensure its egress is easier. Also, the on the B-52 comparison? It actually is still more survivable than the A-10 owing to its greater stand off capability. The A-10 can't let loose a volley of cruise missiles and turn for home before it even enters hostile airspace. The A-10's use in recent years has been against irregular combatants in a COIN capacity. In that regard, the OA-1K is what will be supplanting the A-10 in its counter-insurgency role. As @Mr_sukebe stated, an A-10 cannot beat a turboprop in terms of cost effectiveness. And the adoption of the OA-1K isn't at all radical or strange as the concept of the turbine prop COIN aircraft has been pretty solidly proven in various theatres across the planet. It was proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, by the Super Tucano. The A-10's time has come. It's time to start winding down its operation, lest it become the American Stuka. Even its operational and upkeep costs are growing at a substantial rate. The production of new wings has easily eclipse the $1b mark. This is to be expected of any military air frame of that age, though. It gets more and more expensive to operate given the wear and tear these aircraft get. Crew chiefs aren't wizard and they're asked to maintain decades old airframes to the best of their abilities, but for the A-10? The Rubicon approaches. Durability doesn't count for much when you catch an SA-2, the F-16, F/A-18, and F-35 are much better suited for dealing with that. That durability also doesn't mean a thing when used incorrectly, a testament to the 6 lost over Iraq in '91, making the A-10 one of the worst in terms of losses of that conflict and almost half of the total losses the USAF suffered. The loiter time is impressive, but a drone is better suited for very long loitering over a target. The gun can't pen anything past a T-62. It also has an enormous spread. Turboprops can carry the same weapons the A-10 can, save for the big gun, and have it beat for efficiency. The one last realm where the A-10 finds relevance would be in the ability to bring a lot of bombs to bear in an environment void of SAMs. You can find it cool, there's no denying that it is. But, at some point, war will leave all tech developed for it in the past. After all, how many armies line up as hoplites in a phalanx, now? Legionaries in a Testudo? Impis in the horns of the bull? The US Navy could still be flying my beloved A-6, it'd still be a function attack platform and (arguably) still more relevant in a modern battle space than the A-10. But, time catches up with a fleet and superiors arise as it did with the F/A-18C/D and F/A-18E/F. At best, the A-10 is an auxiliary, plugging holes to free up better airframes for more dangerous work. At worst? Long past expiration date.

Thanks!

You guys have a youtube channel or something? I'd be very interested in watching operations from your perspective!

Ruh roh, someone got hacked.

The things we have to do for immersion

The baked in reflections just need to go, period.