A-10 vs F-35 - taking (virtual) bets

[HiJack]

Here is some other tasty stuff

[ame]https://www.nammo.com/globalassets/pdfs/ammobook/nammo_ammo-handbook_v3_2015.pdf[/ame]

[Tirak]

"The Air Force deployed 144 A-10s into the AOR. Air superiority allowed innovative employment of A-10s in a variety of roles. Primarily killing tanks in an interdiction role, the A-10 proved its versatility as a daytime SCUD hunter In Western Iraq, suppressing enemy air defenses, attacking early warning radars, and even recorded two helicopter kills with its gun --- the only gun kills of the war. While the A-10 flew almost 8,100 sorties, it maintained a mission capable rate of 95.7 % --- 5 % above its peacetime rates. Despite numerous hits and extensive damage, the A-10 proved it could do a variety of missions successfully."

 

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/appendix/whitepaper.html )

 

Daytime SCUD hunting, I.E. hunting trucks dispersed in the middle of the desert, Sead in the form of going after early warning radars, something Apache's did as well, because an early warning radar isn't a SAM sight. For those, we sent in F-16s and F-4s. I find it interesting that according to your own chard, F-16s participated in vastly more sorties and suffered less than half the losses per sortie, and despite flying so many more sorties, lost fewer planes absolutely than the A-10.

 

 

“The A-10 will not be used in a high threat environment. Seventy percent of the A-10s we used during the first Gulf War suffered battle damage. It’s a rugged airplane, but it’s not hard to hit.” Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force Chief of Staff

 

"According to the survey, between January 17 and February 28, 1991, a fleet of 132 A-10s executed 7983 combat sorties. There were 13 recorded instances of battle damage from enemy fire. In addition, there were four combat losses.

 

"Even if we assume that each incident involved a separate aircraft and even if we ignore the fact that a total of 169 A-10s participated in the operation due to airframe rotations, the total proportion of the fleet suffering battle damage would be 12.9%.

 

This means Welsh exaggerated the battle damage rate by at least 57.1%.

 

He also went astray in saying the A-10 was “not hard to hit,” as the excerpted table below demonstrates. The fleet suffered just 1.6 damaged aircraft per 1000 sorties despite operating constantly within range of enemy anti-aircraft and shoulder-fired missile threats, and carried a loss rate among the lowest across the entire coalition."

http://www.jqpublicblog.com/csaf-misrepresents-a-10-combat-record-in-first-gulf-war/

 

Lying Prick? Well no. Welsh is a pretty nice guy. But is he fudging numbers to kill A-10....absolutely!

 

Again, see my above comment. F-16s and F-4Gs both suffered lower losses, and their targets were specifically SAM sights and well defended bunkers, throwing themselves into the teeth of the engagement.

 

In fact, according to your chart, the only strike aircraft in the USAF the A-10 beats out is the Strike Eagle, which suffered only 2 losses but sortied far fewer times, thus inflating their losses in comparison. It also beats out a single AC-130 shot down, and a Sparkvark who flew into terrain on the first night because despite having near air dominance, the 'Vark was still getting lit up from a MiG-25. What the chart does tell me, is that A-10s, sent up against positions determined to be of minimal threat to them, suffered twice as many losses because they had to fly low and slow to mix it up.

 

None of this changes Horners comments, who specifically stated that A-10s were pulled from areas where it was likely to meet resistance.

[OutOnTheOP]

Some people seem *really* hung up on the "but, what if they need to engage a target REALLY close to friendlies?" scenario. OK, fair enough, the 30mm is a good weapon to conduct those engagements.

 

However, the 25mm has been shown to be just as accurate, from a longer distance.

 

"But, it only carries 180 rounds!" seems to be the immediate counter.

 

Fine, true... but exactly HOW many times in a single sortie do you expect to engage targets SO close to friendlies that you need to resort to strafing? Needing to engage targets too close for APKWS or SDB would be unusual: needing to do so more than 4-5 times on one mission would be... let's just call it highly atypical. F-35 can conduct at least a couple passes in the *relatively rare* cases gun is truly needed, and they'll always fly in at least a wing pair, so that makes 4-5 passes between them.

 

I have a hard time imagining a scenario in which more than that would be needed. Maybe a Chinese People's Volunteers 1950-type human wave scenario, but in that case, I doubt the gun runs would matter much, and you'd probably make more impact on the outcome of the battle by dropping CBU87s onto the mass of troops further to the rear of the "wave" anyhow!

 

A good CAS aircraft needs to be able to get to the target area quickly when needed (loiter time is *a* method, but not the only method), rapidly and accurately ID the intended target (which can be done with good sensors; the A-10 HAD to be low and slow to get it done, because when it was designed, visual was the ONLY way to accomplish this. That's not the case anymore), and put effective ordnance onto the target with sufficient accuracy to avoid fratricide (which can be accomplished with a relatively unsophisticated gun, or with PGMs). None of these things REQUIRE low/slow operation, armor, or a ton of cannon ammunition. As an end-user of these systems (the guy on the ground), I don't actually CARE what system it is that delivers the ordnance. What matters is that a) the fires are delivered quickly, and b) they hit what you want to hit and nothing else. A 30mm gun run from an A-10 will accomplish the desired effect. So will an SDB from an F-35. So will an Excalibur or other guided cannon or mortar round. Each one will successfully and selectively engage a target within 70 meters of friendlies. Pretty sure an M777 howitzer has even the A-10 beat on both loiter time and cost effectiveness; that $70,000 guided projectile is *still* a lot cheaper than all the fuel, maintenance, and manpower (paychecks) required to just get an A-10 up in the air burning holes in the sky for a few hours (even if it expends NO ordnance). Either way, all of these systems will all accomplish the desired effect. Full stop. Accomplishing the desired effect on the battlefield is the only thing that matters. Not how "sexy" the method of delivery is.

 

Personally, I think the GAU-8 is a waste. All told, the weight investment in gun, feed system, and propellant/cases would be better invested into guided gravity weapons; you'd get more effect per pound of munition if you let gravity do the work of getting it to the target instead of spending thousands of pounds on a gun that requires you to enter the engagement envelope of everything larger than .50 cal, and which isn't capable of killing tanks anyway. Yes, we should keep a gun for when we need it, but hauling around multiple thousands of pounds of it is stupid. Carry something lighter, and carry as much ammo as you're generally going to need.... which I would not be surprised to find was statistically somewhere south of 200 rounds.

 

Personally, I think we should keep a *few* A-10s for use in COIN, with perhaps 40-50 airframes. However, if it's cheaper to buy new Super Tucano (or similar) than to refurbish and continue operating A-10, I'd be perfectly happy with employing dedicated COIN aircraft. A-10 very rarely carries anything more than 4 stations of ordnance these days anyway, so the inability for a COIN A/C to carry more than 2-3,000 pounds of ordnance is a bit academic: you don't need more for COIN, and A-10 can't survive high-intensity anyway. Maybe pod M230 (Apache cannon) for the COIN A/C. Frankly, it's a better choice than GAU-8: way (WAY!) lighter, as or more accurate, and has equally effective HE/frag effect. All you're really losing is muzzle velocity and rate of fire, but those aren't terribly important against soft targets, only against armor... against which GAU-8 is inadequate anyway. M230 will easily kill BMP and similar (just like GAU-8 ), and neither will kill tanks.

Edited May 6, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Snoopy]

Fine, true... but exactly HOW many times in a single sortie do you expect to engage targets SO close to friendlies that you need to resort to strafing?

 

More times than I can count, 500 to 1150 (yes a full belt) during my deployment.

 

But in all honesty I could quote every thing I could from my deployment (and past A-10 deployments) but some people just want to argue to argue.

 

Sierra99 I wish you luck if you keep posting in this thread because you can argue until you're blue in the face but people will not listen, even to those with first hand knowledge/experience.

 

Personally, I think the GAU-8 is a waste. All told, the weight investment in gun, feed system, and propellant/cases would be better invested into guided gravity weapons; you'd get more effect per pound of munition if you let gravity do the work of getting it to the target instead of spending thousands of pounds on a gun that requires you to enter the engagement envelope of everything larger than .50 cal, and which isn't capable of killing tanks anyway. Yes, we should keep a gun for when we need it, but hauling around multiple thousands of pounds of it is stupid. Carry something lighter, and carry as much ammo as you're generally going to need.... which I would not be surprised to find was statistically somewhere south of 200 rounds.

 

This just proves how little real information you actually know.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Snoopy

[Sweep]

So why can't we have both?

 

I mean, look at this badassness:

 

[Tirak]

So why can't we have both?

 

I mean, look at this badassness:

 

 

'Cause the Cold War ended in the 90s and so Congress has gotten all tightfisted about spending on the military.

[Sweep]

If there's one good thing that shall come out of the impending internet crapshow that is the A-10 and F-35 flyoff, its gonna be the pictures.

 

I really want an A-10/F-35 desktop background, man!

[Sierra99]

More times than I can count, 500 to 1150 (yes a full belt) during my deployment.

 

But in all honesty I could quote every thing I could from my deployment (and past A-10 deployments) but some people just want to argue to argue.

 

Sierra99 I wish you luck if you keep posting in this thread because you can argue until you're blue in the face but people will not listen, even to those with first hand knowledge/experience.

 

This just proves how little real information you actually know.

 

Snoopy,

 

I came to the same conclusion about 3 hours ago I just havn't had time to wish the F-35 crowd the best of luck.

 

The A-10 is proven...the F-35 isn't.

[Hadwell]

the A-10 is a huge moral booster for the guys on the ground too, also probably scares the enemy s***less... that's a good weapon in itself, never mind the actual damage the thing can do.... but then so do unmanned drones...

[Sierra99]

 

This is a CAS mission. The exact type of mission the A-10 was optimized for. I can't show you a video of a mission the F-35 was optimized for...well, because it wasn't optimized for anything.

 

In case you miss it the A-10s expend about 2000 rounds in less than 5 minutes. In case you miss it the voice on the radio is drowned out by machine gun fire numerous times during the video. You can blather all you want about Sooper Dooper sensors, SDBs and nifty ammo but in the end THIS is the mission. Supporting kids on the ground who probably can't legally buy beer who are screaming for help and hoping to see breakfast.

 

If the F-35 can't do THIS MISSION... it is not an appropriate choice as a replacement for the A-10. Period

 

Some of us have served. Some directly supporting the A-10 as ground crew, others as Aircrew in Supporting aircraft. We may not be the pilots but I'm sure I can speak for Snoopy and the rest when I say we all knew when missions went well...and we all knew when they didn't. We are far more familiar with what the A-10 is capable of than anyone reading about them on the Internet...but you're obviously not interested in what we have to say so...

 

I will say this, I'm with Snoopy. I'd love to see you tell an A-10 pilot he was "relegated to a bitch role cleaning up the leftovers from more relevant aircraft that have better and more important things to do."

 

Wanna know what the first thing you'd hear would be...

 

"Doctor look! He's awake!"

Edited May 6, 2016 by Sierra99

[Tirak]

 

This is a CAS mission. The exact type of mission the A-10 was optimized for. I can't show you a video of a mission the F-35 was optimized for...well, because it wasn't optimized for anything.

 

In case you miss it the A-10s expend about 2000 rounds in less than 5 minutes. In case you miss it the voice on the radio is drowned out by machine gun fire numerous times during the video. You can blather all you want about Sooper Dooper sensors, SDBs and nifty ammo but in the end THIS is the mission. Supporting kids on the ground who probably can't legally buy beer who are screaming for help and hoping to see breakfast.

 

If the F-35 can't do THIS MISSION... it is not an appropriate choice as a replacement for the A-10. Period

 

Some of us have served. Some directly supporting the A-10 as ground crew, others as Aircrew in Supporting aircraft. We may not be the pilots but I'm sure I can speak for Snoopy and the rest when I say we all knew when missions went well...and we all knew when they didn't. We are far more familiar with what the A-10 is capable of than anyone reading about them on the Internet...but you're obviously not interested in what we have to say so...

 

I will say this, I'm with Snoopy. I'd love to see you tell an A-10 pilot he was "relegated to a bitch role cleaning up the leftovers from more relevant aircraft that have better and more important things to do."

 

Wanna know what the first thing you'd hear would be...

 

"Doctor look! He's awake!"

 

By your logic, America needs to scrap MBTs because they're not optimized for any one role but rather designed to fulfill the roles of Scout Tank, Light Tanks, Medium Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Tank Destroyers ect. We also have to scrap IFVs because they're not tanks but they're not optimized for troop transport. We have to scrap carbines because they're not optimized for range like a sniper rifle, but also not optimized for close quarters like a pistol.

 

As I'm writing this, I'm amused to recall that the M1 had similar criticisms heaped upon it by the likes of Pierre Sprey, the patron saint of the anti F-35 movement. I think we all know where that went.

 

"The F-35 isn't designed for one role and therefore sucks" argument falls to pieces once you actually look at how much the military prides versatility. When Air Force tankers started hauling Probe and Drogue extensions to their Boom refuelers, was this a failure of the Air Force because they weren't operating a Probe and Drogue only tanker?

 

The F-35 will perform CAS, in a different way, but the mission will still get done. We changed the weapons when we changed the platform so that we could be more flexible in how we employed it. The A-10 flies low and slow because when it was built, that was the only way to do CAS, this is no longer the case.

 

In the words of a very good friend serving overseas right now "We don't really care what platform brings it, just as long as when we call it in, it kills the enemy." Appealing to the good feeling in your gut when you hear that cannon firing isn't a justifiable reason to keep around the platform that was designed when precision guided weapons meant a 1000lb dart guided by a dude looking at a flare and fiddling with a joystick. Times have changed. We can either change with them, or reap the harvest sown by allowing our personal warm and fuzzies to dictate military policy.

[OutOnTheOP]

This just proves how little real information you actually know.

 

Anyone ever tell you that you argue like a real prick?

 

You (nor Sierra) have not actually offered up any real counter-arguments, you have simply relied on "appeal to authority" logical fallacies and insisted you "know better" than everyone else, and when they make a logical argument, you just dismiss it with "yeah, well, you just don't know anything".

 

So what if your aircraft fired 500 rounds?

 

Have you thought that perhaps the *reason* they fired 500 rounds was because they did not have a selectable rate of fire, and that just *maybe*, pasting the area with a 500 round burst was perhaps a bit overkill? Against infantry targets (including in buildings), the density of fire the GAU-8 puts out is far more than required.

 

Against the same target sets, AH-64 with M230 regularly, successfully prosecute those *EXACT* same targets (squad-size groups of insurgents within 50 meters of friendlies) with 10-15 rounds of 30mm, because they have a lower rate of fire and are not wasting ammunition plastering the area with a zillion rounds.

 

Again, aircraft having in the past spent 500 rounds is not the same thing as proving that 500 rounds is, in fact, required. If a cannon with an 800-1200 rpm rate of fire were used, I would bet good money that you would have the same effect on target using a quarter the ammunition.

 

Since you seem so hung up on your supposed intellectual superiority based on, what, that you count how many rounds the pilots expended on the mission for which you were not present, perhaps I should point out that for YEARS, I was a fire support officer. You know, the ACTUAL guys on the ground. The ones that have to actually figure out how to "make it to breakfast". The ones that actually have to determine the best weapons for the task. I have actually BEEN in firefights on multiple occasions, and have had to be the one officer on the ground deciding the systems to use, and directing them onto the target. Since you seem to think that "personal experience" is all that counts, I will tell you this: in my opinion, the AH64 is the superior system for super-close CAS, compared to the A-10. But more than that, when I needed close-in support to suppress the enemy, the very BEST option was my 120mm mortar section. Out of the dozens of times I had to put ordnance on targets, the BEST, and FASTEST effects observed on target were consistently delivered by my organic mortars. And yes, I could and did bring them in to within 70 meters of friendlies.

 

Not once did I require a GAU-8 run; against targets in close (35-50 meters) I successfully employed:

30mm from Apache, which killed the target on the first pass.

Hellfire from Apache, which killed the target on the first pass

Excalibur guided cannon projectile, which killed the target with a single round, delivered within 5-7 minutes, about the same time it would take to talk an A/C onto target (assuming that the clearance of fire for the CAS run didn't take an hour like it usually does)

JDAM from F-16, which killed the target on the first pass (ok, this one wasn't actually close to friendlies, but WAS close other buildings and the effects were limited to just the target building; I would have been perfectly comfortable using it on a target across the street from friendlies)

 

Please, tell me again how I "know nothing" and come from a position of ignorance, where I cannot form an informed opinion about whether the very niche capabilities of the A-10 are required to support my operations or not.

Edited May 6, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[OutOnTheOP]

I will say this, I'm with Snoopy. I'd love to see you tell an A-10 pilot he was "relegated to a bitch role cleaning up the leftovers from more relevant aircraft that have better and more important things to do."

 

Wanna know what the first thing you'd hear would be...

 

"Doctor look! He's awake!"

 

Ooh, look, internet badass is bandying around testosterone-inflated threats!

 

... because, y'know, A-10 pilots totally train in hand-to-hand, combatives, bayonet, and other unarmed combat drill just like the infantry.

 

I would actually laugh to see that hypothetical self-assured A-10 jockey START a fight with a grunt, just to get fed his own fist.... and then get UCMJ'd when he comes to, for assaulting the grunt.

Edited May 6, 2016 by OutOnTheOP

[Hummingbird]

Anyone ever tell you that you argue like a real prick?

 

You (nor Sierra) have not actually offered up any real counter-arguments, you have simply relied on "appeal to authority" logical fallacies and insisted you "know better" than everyone else, and when they make a logical argument, you just dismiss it with "yeah, well, you just don't know anything".

 

So what if your aircraft fired 500 rounds?

 

Have you thought that perhaps the *reason* they fired 500 rounds was because they did not have a selectable rate of fire, and that just *maybe*, pasting the area with a 500 round burst was perhaps a bit overkill? Against infantry targets (including in buildings), the density of fire the GAU-8 puts out is far more than required.

 

Against the same target sets, AH-64 with M230 regularly, successfully prosecute those *EXACT* same targets (squad-size groups of insurgents within 50 meters of friendlies) with 10-15 rounds of 30mm, because they have a lower rate of fire and are not wasting ammunition plastering the area with a zillion rounds.

 

Again, aircraft having in the past spent 500 rounds is not the same thing as proving that 500 rounds is, in fact, required. If a cannon with an 800-1200 rpm rate of fire were used, I would bet good money that you would have the same effect on target using a quarter the ammunition.

 

Since you seem so hung up on your supposed intellectual superiority based on, what, that you count how many rounds the pilots expended on the mission for which you were not present, perhaps I should point out that for YEARS, I was a fire support officer. You know, the ACTUAL guys on the ground. The ones that have to actually figure out how to "make it to breakfast". The ones that actually have to determine the best weapons for the task. I have actually BEEN in firefights on multiple occasions, and have had to be the one officer on the ground deciding the systems to use, and directing them onto the target. Since you seem to think that "personal experience" is all that counts, I will tell you this: in my opinion, the AH64 is the superior system for super-close CAS, compared to the A-10. But more than that, when I needed close-in support to suppress the enemy, the very BEST option was my 120mm mortar section. Out of the dozens of times I had to put ordnance on targets, the BEST, and FASTEST effects observed on target were consistently delivered by my organic mortars. And yes, I could and did bring them in to within 70 meters of friendlies.

 

Not once did I require a GAU-8 run; against targets in close (35-50 meters) I successfully employed:

30mm from Apache, which killed the target on the first pass.

Hellfire from Apache, which killed the target on the first pass

Excalibur guided cannon projectile, which killed the target with a single round, delivered within 5-7 minutes, about the same time it would take to talk an A/C onto target (assuming that the clearance of fire for the CAS run didn't take an hour like it usually does)

JDAM from F-16, which killed the target on the first pass (ok, this one wasn't actually close to friendlies, but WAS close other buildings and the effects were limited to just the target building; I would have been perfectly comfortable using it on a target across the street from friendlies)

 

Please, tell me again how I "know nothing" and come from a position of ignorance, where I cannot form an informed opinion about whether the very niche capabilities of the A-10 are required to support my operations or not.

 

I don't really doubt that the Apache is more effective than the A-10 in many situations (infact it is THE support asset I'd want the most on any patrol), I am curious as to how long an Apache can loiter an area by comparison though.

 

Also I don't really see the point in comparing the A-10 with local artillery as then you're essentially comparing air support with artillery support, and as you know there often be cases where one or the orther isn't available. Furthermore artillery support also relies completely on your coordinates as a fire support officer, where'as by comparison an Apache or A-10 can actually keep track of and engage a mobile threat that you the grunts on the ground can't see anymore.

 

In short there will be instances where an A-10 is the best tool for the job, and that's not coming from just the A-10 jocks, but also from grunts on the ground who've had to rely on its support in cases where fighter bombers & artillery couldn't help them out and the Apaches didn't have the fuel to stick around.

 

Anyway just my thoughts on the matter...

Edited May 6, 2016 by Hummingbird

[Wolverine88]

Ooh, look, internet badass is bandying around testosterone-inflated threats!

 

... because, y'know, A-10 pilots totally train in hand-to-hand, combatives, bayonet, and other unarmed combat drill just like the infantry.

 

I would actually laugh to see that hypothetical self-assured A-10 jockey START a fight with a grunt, just to get fed his own fist.... and then get UCMJ'd when he comes to, for assaulting the grunt.

 

Yeah, gotta say that i'm not sure exactly why the media always have the quotes from the A-10 pilots. Maybe because they really have to worry about their careers or something or that because they're officers their word has more weight (which it shouldn't).

 

The people the media/government should be asking is the word of the people on the ground who count on the CAS that they provide!

 

I guess the people in flight-suits garner better ratings...

[SkateZilla]

F-35s need some of these!

 

 

Hehe... :D

 

Actually, now I kinda wonder if they'll have the gunpod station available to the A...

 

That POD would vibrate the F-35 Airframe to the point where it wouldnt be able to fly after a few runs without significant maintenance time.

 

Slap some Radar Absorbing Paint on the A-10C's and Congress will love it again, (Assuming we havent already done that... )

 

They dont seem to wanna write checks unless it's a Stealth Fighter, Meanwhile Exported F-16s are still being upgraded, while ours not so much (not saying they arent)

 

As noted before, Alot of the Assumptions of the A-10s capabilties is based off what it can do in DCS A-10C, lol. which is like 5 Suites Old already.

 

That being said, F-35 was not designed to be a CAS Role Exclusively, while the A-10C was.

 

No amount of GunPods is gonna take the F-35 and Make it anywhere near as efficient as the A-10 is at CAS.

[Tirak]

That POD would vibrate the F-35 Airframe to the point where it wouldnt be able to fly after a few runs without significant maintenance time.

 

Slap some Radar Absorbing Paint on the A-10C's and Congress will love it again, (Assuming we havent already done that... )

 

They dont seem to wanna write checks unless it's a Stealth Fighter, Meanwhile Exported F-16s are still being upgraded, while ours not so much (not saying they arent)

 

As noted before, Alot of the Assumptions of the A-10s capabilties is based off what it can do in DCS A-10C, lol. which is like 5 Suites Old already.

 

That being said, F-35 was not designed to be a CAS Role Exclusively, while the A-10C was.

 

No amount of GunPods is gonna take the F-35 and Make it anywhere near as efficient as the A-10 is at CAS.

 

You're right, no amount of of gun pods will make the F-35 as good at doing Close Air Support as the A-10. The advanced sensors and precision munitions will.

[Necroscope]

F-35 will win not because of sensors, munitions and other voodoo magic, but because of amount of bucks already invested and already planed to be invested.

Investors do not care on CAS efficiency and the military must follow the orders.

[Tirak]

F-35 will win not because of sensors, munitions and other voodoo magic, but because of amount of bucks already invested and already planed to be invested.

Investors do not care on CAS efficiency and the military must follow the orders.

 

I was wondering when the RT brigade would arrive. :megalol:

[Necroscope]

I was wondering when the RT brigade would arrive. :megalol:

 

And here we are, always at your service! ;)

 

This thread stuck on "I'm right and you wrong" arguments regarding only 3 points (sensors, flight time, munition). Both sides decide that this points are relevant and irrelevant at the same time in different combinations.

So it the time to bring some chaos in discussion. :)

 

Welcome! :)

[Cunctator]

Nothing but miraculous performance in a full scale war will ever satisfy the F-35 critics. If it is performing well in tests or exercises it is just some stupid conspiracy. Or they will just move on to badmouth the next jet fighter project as soon as there is something to show off.

[OutOnTheOP]

Yeah, gotta say that i'm not sure exactly why the media always have the quotes from the A-10 pilots. Maybe because they really have to worry about their careers or something or that because they're officers their word has more weight (which it shouldn't).

 

The people the media/government should be asking is the word of the people on the ground who count on the CAS that they provide!

 

I guess the people in flight-suits garner better ratings...

 

Not sure you'd get any different from many riflemen, though; they love the A-10 because they have been told, again and again, how amazing it is. It is literally a meme. That doesn't mean the A-10 *is* better, but plenty of riflement think it is.

 

Even in their own field of expertise, there are plenty of riflemen (who really ought to know better), who genuinely think the AK47 is a superior weapon to the M4s / M16s they are carrying, despite the fact that every quantifiable metric says otherwise (higher muzzle velocity: M16. Better body armor penetration: M16. More joules of energy delivered on any target beyond 50 meters: M16. Better accuracy: M16. Lower recoil impulse favoring rapid follow-up shots and automatic fire: M16. Twice the ammo carried per weight: M16. Way, WAY better ergonomics- IE, you can activate or deactivate the safety without taking a hand fully off the rifle, you can drop a magazine with one finger rather than a two-hand operation, permitting faster mag swaps, etc etc).

 

Some urban myths are just self-perpetuating.

[Hummingbird]

Perhaps I'm fortunate but I've never heard a rifleman say that an AK47 was better than the M4 or M16 he was carrying. I have heard some argue that 7.62x39 is a better caliber however, and that they wished their rifle was chambered in that instead of 5.56. In some cases such an opinion can be justified.

[probad]

idk how a bunch of video game junkies can't appreciate the magic of sensors. like you know how retarded xray hacks are, and how much of a difference magical target spotting makes between a game like arma 3 and dcs.

 

the f-35 isnt going to be god's eye but compared to the a-10, it's literally going to be hacks. it's going to save the jtac precious time on the ground trying to describe the situation, it's going to save time the pilot acquires and confirms the target, and that means the ordinance is going to arrive that much faster on target. that's what real efficiency is, and no amount of raw firepower will match it short of wiping the board indiscriminately with a nuke.

 

I'd love to see you tell an A-10 pilot he was "relegated to a bitch role cleaning up the leftovers from more relevant aircraft that have better and more important things to do."

 

Wanna know what the first thing you'd hear would be...

 

"Doctor look! He's awake!"

 

that's his ego talking (maybe i should say your ego) but deep down he knows it's true.

the a-10 is literally on welfare and given targets so that it has something to do at all. if you took away the a-10 today the us war machine will just keep on chugging, and the ground boys will keep getting fire support without even skipping a beat. if the us military was such that it falls apart the moment you take away a second-line plane then it has got some serious problems... but us military is smarter than that. it's smarter than you. it doesn't crutch on the a-10, so don't try to sell it off as god's eternal gift to fire support.

 

@OutOnTheOP thanks for your posts, your points are exactly the ones i wished to articulate.

Edited May 6, 2016 by probad

[OutOnTheOP]

Perhaps I'm fortunate but I've never heard a rifleman say that an AK47 was better than the M4 or M16 he was carrying. I have heard some argue that 7.62x39 is a better caliber however, and that they wished their rifle was chambered in that instead of 5.56. In some cases such an opinion can be justified.

 

Thing is... it's not. The 7.62x39 is a terribly anemic round, and at 300 meters has under 2/3 the energy on it that a 62-grain M855 5.56x45mm does. 7.62x39 comes out about 700-800 feet per second slower, and the round is very unaerodynamic, so what little energy it does have, it quickly dumps through air resistance. It has something like 8% more energy at the muzzle, but somewhat less by the time it reaches 100 meters. The one thing 7.62x39 does well is penetrate low-density, thick intermediate barriers like wood or cinderblock- but that's not a function of the cartridge itself, it's because the Russians were cheap and used mild steel instead of lead in the bullet core. It *also* means the bullet doesn't deform in any way in tissues, so it actually causes a pretty mild wound, comparatively speaking. You can accomplish the same with 5.56x45mm by using the M995 armor-piercing round: it will zip right through intermediate cover as well as the 7.62x39 does, and it'll make little icepick wounds just like the 7.62x39, too.

 

There ARE better rounds out there, but 7.62x39 isn't it (for example, if you open the case neck of the 5.56x45mm up to 6mm, and put in a decent 87-grain 6mm bullet, it will fly a trajectory similar to 7.62x51mm NATO, and will have 30% more energy at the muzzle than 5.56mm M855, and something like twice the energy at 500 meters because the bullets are much more aerodynamically efficient. It's the caliber I'm using for a project gun I'm working on at the moment).

 

Aaaaand, sorry for the de-rail.

Edited May 6, 2016 by OutOnTheOP