Emu

General Tomb. :D

Yeah sorry, I think I probably meant ECR.:)

All the ones mentioned are operating AGM-88s according to wiki.

Italy is one because it uses the AGM-88E on its Tornado IDS. Germany, Greece and Spain. ALARM is only qualified on Tornados, which were withdrawn in April this year.

Or AWACSers.

This is one of those debates that will go back and forth for 300 pages with neither one convincing the other, so I'm calling it here before anymore time and bandwidth are wasted.

Oh, and what is the maximum range of a 30mm HEI round fired upwards at 45deg from an altitude of 20,000ft? It never has been that simple, hence why pilots undergo intensive training. That just isn't the case though. Routine ops aren't flown at 40,000ft. Sure it was, MANPADS and SHORAD was always massively present in Soviet forces. DIRCM hardened is not DIRCM proof, and DIRCM could be fitted. Its designated role is not SEAD though. And SAR will pick off most of the passive systems, possibly even these MANPADS guys, we don't know that it can't. The GAU-8 is never dead weight, the PGMs are there to pick off key threats before using the GAU-8 to MOP up anything less capable than 23mm AAA, and there are a lot of such vehicles. BMPs, BTRs, BMDs, artillery, MLRS etc. There are tens of thousands of the latter and you do not want to have to PGM every last one, especially with the contents of an internal weapons bay while they're advancing. The better enemy EW works, the more you need the A-10 I would argue.

Not quite. It came a while before that, as did the afterburner.;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_M.52

You massively overestimate the strength of its armour. And the A-10 also has Maverick and could be equipped with Hellfire/JAGM/Brimstone very easily, it's also getting a SAR pod I believe. http://syntheticapertureradar.com/a-10-warthog-new-sar-payload/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHypMTemjQU&t=280s Dispatch the AD and then move on to APCs and IFVs. Or the F-35s could focus on things that are a threat to the air while the A-10 focuses on things that are a threat to the ground. How often does it fly that high though? A-10s have survived hits from MANPADS before, and this is why you have eyes on the ground. Flare resistant is not flare immune and you also have DIRCM that could be fitted. MANPADS have always been a threat, this is nothing new. It's not a straw man, no one aircraft or piece of equipment is solve-all. The A-10 does some things well, and that is why it is still in service, ditto for the Su-25. Think about it, why the 120rpm RoF if every round gets a direct hit? One A-10 was lost for every 1,000+ enemy armoured units destroyed. An F-35 would require a dozen sorties to destroy the same number of armoured vehicles an A-10 can in one sortie. An F-35 is a fantastic aircraft but it is not suitable for rapid armour removal roles. I would say SAR and SDBs, LJDAMs, CBU-95/105 and LITENING pod upgrades since then are significant. Many systems that could out-range Maverick are no longer safe. I'm sure they could fit an ARM system but growling is best left to Growlers.

Why would you need DU rounds against light armour, 30mm HEI will do. If its range is 9.2km and it detect thermal/EO that far, then any aircraft flying below 30,000ft will be vulnerable, F-35 included. It's also passive, so SAR assets will have to pinpoint them for SDBs or other PGMs, like JAGM or Brimstone, which could also be fitted to an A-10. Once these are removed, then armour can be gunned. I could of course turn this thing around and say, what is the point of the 2S38 since it can't out-range an SDB? Okay, so an F-35 can target these assets and leave A-10s to work on other stuff afterwards, or it can target them for A-10 SDBs. JSTARS could also pick them out. Once again, the A-10, like the Su-25 and AH-64 are part of the puzzle, not the whole thing. Not really, no. The round is guided but I bet it is proximity fused and rarely gets a direct hit. The A-10 is better equipped to deal with shrapnel than most planes. Of course, air defence targets would be prioritised and taken out first if possible, but don't expect everything to be as clean and clinical as Desert Storm. All technology is vulnerable.

Well what is the range? Guided 30mm rounds falling from high altitude would surely out range it, otherwise even the F-35 would be vulnerable if it flew within EO/Thermal range. We have no idea how accurate this thing is and as soon as it starts firing it makes itself a target. You might not have any choice but to gun it if you don't have enough PGMs, or if your PGMs don't work. Russian EW also continues to modernise.

If they land near enough. The A-10 can of course drop them too.

You could use it from further away against light armour and AAA if you knew every round would hit. Lofting the rounds if need be.

So that $150 per round. Say $5250 for a half second burst and the enemy is down a $5-10m armoured vehicle, plus personnel and munitions.

Well that's why there were many tactical nukes as well. The A-10 was for a potential conventional scenario to avoid the use of nukes. There are similar potential scenarios in Korea over the DMZ. Maybe guided 30mm rounds are a future possibility.

What about the exposed optics and armament on the roof, or the tracks? No need to destroy a tank if you can turn it into a useless tin can for anti-tank personal, friendly MBTs and ATGM-equipped IFVs to dine on. Mr. TOW, Mrs. Javelin and Mr. M829 will be happy to finish them off.

Then the other part of the ISR network will be targetable. 10 minutes to setup, 10 minutes to unsetup, X minutes to move from A to B. Basically, it has to be largely stationary to provide effective air defence. The A-10 leaves other jobs like SEAD and air superiority to fighters better equipped for that role, rather than trying to have an F-35 running SEAD, CAS and air superiority at the same time. The load carrying ability of the F-35 is also much smaller when used in a stealth configuration. An intact Russian IADS would definitely chew-up A-10s operating alone, or F-16s, or Apache, or Cobras, or F-15s, or F-18s. That isn't my argument at all. They certainly aren't suitable for a day 1 offensive air operation, but that isn't the role they'd be used in, or the role they were intended to be used in. Look at it this way, I could make all the same arguments about an Su-25. I think you're making the mistake of assuming 1 plane should be standalone. No equipment is standalone. I mean, why have artillery, since they are useless against air power, ditto for infantry? They all have a role and do not operate in isolation, so why make an argument that they should be able to?

Both of those systems are radar guided and hence detectable and locatable by JSTARS and EW assets. And I don't think anyone was proposing that the A-10 fly alone against such systems. They're really not that mobile and they can't fire on the move. Any non-stealth aircraft needs EW support and even stealth aircraft too to some extent, so unless you propose getting rid of a lot of other aircraft too, this makes no argument. Well I think you've lost the argument with that last comment. Basically what you're saying is that if the enemy's EW capabilities turn out to be better than expected, you propose coming out with your pants down and your a55 in the air. I would use both the GAU-8 and B61s before surrendering. I also miss those nuclear-tipped howitzer rounds. Even DoD simulations have shown that a lot of the equipment you're relying on might not work against a peer enemy, especially GPS.

The scenario I presented is exactly the reason the A-10 was developed in the first place. It was a supplement to the Assault Breaker and Wide Area Anti-Armour Munitions programs. The idea is obviously to stop the enemy before they get within firing distance of your AFB. There is also an economical argument for a 30mm gatling gun.

But what do you do if the enemy storms forward with tens of thousands of armoured vehicles after you've ran out of missiles and they're heading for your AFB, assuming the use of tactical nukes has been ruled out?

After the long range systems have been destroyed you can fly beyond the reach of the shorter range systems. An attack helicopter doesn't have that ability.

Yeah, and there are a lot more APCs, IFVs and artillery unis than MBTs. Unless you miss a MANPADS, SHORAD or guided AAA system. SDB = standoff weapon. Not if the enemy is about to take your airbase with tanks.

Neither of those will survive an SA-6 hit though. Also, what kind of jamming and flares package do they have? Unfortunately Jihadi Joe is getting a little more sophisticated. Equally, any case against the A-10 could also be made against attack helicopters too. If an A-10 is used in an environment and way where the enemy can easily shoot it down, then an attack helicopter would be even easier to shoot down. The A-10 certainly shouldn't be used pre-SEAD during an offensive, nor should an attack helicopter (although it was during Desert Storm). But there is the post-SEAD environment and also the defensive battle. Some potential adversaries, not mentioning any names, have nearly 100,000 tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery units, and could easily produce way more in the event of a war. Is there a guided weapon for every single one in the event of an onslaught? What about if some miss, or get jammed, decoyed, active-killed or whatever? There's no jamming a GAU-8 and it's a good way of taking out anything less than the strongest MBTs, and can maybe mission-kill even those.

They better not use this as a pretext for anal probing.