MiG21bisFishbedL

There's no real need for a trainer outside of light attack stuff. If you lawndart, then you restart.

They could also put an AESA radar into an F-102A and bring those back into squadron service. I would like that, but it doesn't mean it'd be a good idea. Why place such expensive materiel into a hopelessly outdated airframe? That's the issue with making the A-10 "stealth." Why put RAM on it when it could be put towards another aircraft, even a Have Glass Viper? The use of stealth concepts on something like the A-10 flies in the face of the very doctrines it operates under. In my civil career, I've flown aircraft that are faster than the A-10, meaning it can't escape trouble. It has no internal weapon bays and, when you carry the A-10's payload, that reflects radar very readily. The Have Glass F-16s have RAM to delay their eventual detection to a point that the Viper's superior speed and maneuverability can provide ample protection. There's a reason why they're favored in the SEAD role. The A-10, given a similar treatment, would lack that survivability. This was learned in Desert Storm; the A-10 has poor chances in a hot AO. The F-16 out sortied the A-10 while representing less losses and the F-111 out-killed it with its precision guided weapons, its ability to operate at night and in inclement weather (though, those issues have been addressed on the A-10), and without any losses during the entire combat operation to enemy action. 3 F-16s were lost. 6 A-10s were lost. But, sure, we could build a modern A-10 with all the niceties of the modern age. We could give it the EOTS to allow it to really see into the darkness. We could give it the EODAS to allow it unprecedented situational awareness. We could give it all the nice gubbins that make a modern fighter so potent and we're left with the same problem that the A-6F program faced: Why? Why are we putting next gen turbofans into an airframe that could recall Ike's presidency? Why are we placing a brand new radar set into an aircraft whose current crews weren't even alive when it first flew? Why are we even considering putting AMRAAMs on an aircraft that might have a lost Creedence Clearwater Revival 8 track laying in one of its storage bins? See, the Navy was quite keen to update the A-6. It had been the backbone of their strike capability for decades. It had proven itself extremely good at this, too. It gave the Navy and Marine Corps the ability to hit targets in any weather, day or night, in an accurate fashion. Marines who would've dreaded the onset of the monsoon season would now know that Intruders could provide much needed CAS if they needed it. This is a capability and status that the A-10 didn't even hold with the USAF. So, the idea of making its primary strike platform more potent and more deadly was a tempting idea. Until, they considered it a little more. See, the A-6F was going to have all those options. It was going to have the F404 engine, it was going to have a much nicer AN/APQ-173 radar, MFDs, and the ability to carry and launch AMRAAMs. Eventually, the Navy discovered a better option. They could have a fighter that had similar capabilities but could also actually conduct the various air-to-air and fleet defense missions they needed done. This fighter could utilize the latest in computing technology and ergonomics, meaning that the two person crew of the Intruder could have their entire job done by a single pilot. This aircraft was the F/A-18 Hornet. It fulfilled everything the A-6F program set out to accomplish and more. The only thing the A-6 had over the F/A-18, at the time, was total payload. But, when we're talking the use of precision weapons like Paveways and Mavericks, payload starts to lose its importance. And besides that, the Super Hornet almost matches the Intruders' payload completely, only being lighter by a slight margin. To be accurate, the stated reason for the A-6F's cancellation was the A-12 Avenger program, but all roads lead to Rome, here. This is still preferable to keeping a legacy aircraft in your units since those old aircraft get more and more expensive to operate as time goes by and reopening assembly lines is almost never even considered. The only time I can recall that happening? The A-10's predecessor, the A-1 Skyraider. While it proved itself a fantastic CAS platform, the Skyraider was not even considered something they'd throw into contested airspace or into airspaces with SAM activities. Most A-1 losses were to AAA. Why? It was slow. We do have stories of Skyraiders winning dogfights, but that has a lot more to do with the inexperience of VPAF MiG-17 crews than it does the A-1. Ask any of those guys behind the stick of A-1s ambushed by MiG-17s and they'll tell you it was a nightmare scenario. The supposed stealth A-10 I described? It already exists: It's the F-35A. If you're needing stealth, it's because you're going into a very dangerous environment. You're going to need speed, stealth, and maneuverability to come out alive and the A-10 lacks all 3 of those. The A-10 proved itself to be an expensive, but effective COIN aircraft. This is not a role you need much stealth for outside of the cloak of darkness. The A-10's time is here. It is better that its fans accept that than cling onto the false hope that it could find relevance on a modern battlefield. Were it to come to that? It would find itself sharing a similar ignominious end as the Luftwaffe's Ju-87 did once it encountered contested airspace.

That's a lot of crayons!

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if some operators who use later variants get represented on the A.

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!