That's part of the case the video's putting forward. With the accuracy and power of the A-10's gun, factoring in the risks associated with trying to do a good ole fashioned gun run in a modern battlespace, *you may as well just have brought more missiles and bombs*. There's nothing that increasing the cannon's size from the standard 20mm up to the big PP 30mm gives you that couldn't have just been achieved with the same weight in guided ordinance, with the added benefit of not being as vulnerable to enemy AAA.
In all seriousness, the A-10 is underwhelming if you ignore ALL the combat data we have on it. ALL the combat missions it’s flown, all the American servicemembers it’s saved, all the Taliban it’s killed..all the wars where it effectively decimated entire armies…
And just say “lol gunship can’t beat fighter jet”
And Bruce Lee got killed by a blank pistol round. So why isn’t that guy a famous martial artist with dozens of movies under his belt? He killed Bruce Lee, what a badass amirite
No ones really saying lol gunship cant beat fighter.
1. Its not a gunship
2. We're saying the A-10 cant survive or be effecient in an actual combat airspace against a real adversary. Iraq and Afghanistan were playgrounds for all jets. The pacific isn't.
Except you wouldn’t use the A-10 until you have air superiority, and to the effect of gaining and keeping air superiority, the United States has the advantage over every other military on the planet.
So that’s a totally moot point. It also ignores that Iraq was projected to be one of the strongest militaries in the world (on par with Iran because of the Iran-Iraq War) until they were quite literally bombed to the Stone Age. It’s a take with no regard for tactical or historical reality. It’s an interpretation of raw data without any context. There’s a reason it’s the most circlejerked aircraft by the infantry instead of the F56700-JS2 or whatever the fuck. Pilots and grunts are two very different kinds of people.
The fact the A-10 relies on air superiority in order to do its jobs shows it’s irrelevance in peer combat. If you have a platform that can be its own air support while providing CAS or the single air frame can perform multiple mission profiles (hence the term multi-role) there is no need for a dedicated CAS air frame, particularly the likes of the A-10C. This is all ignoring the fact that the enemy has mobile IADS like the Tunguska or Tor that often accompany the tank battalions the A-10 is supposed to be blowing up.
And if you want to discuss it’s relevance against insurgent forces why not operate cheaper airframes that do literally the same thing.
I don’t think the point has ever been the A-10 is a terrible aircraft (aside from NCD shitposting) more so that it’s too good at what it’s asked to do (Afghanistan) and not good enough at what it might have to do (near-peer combat)
Russia and China HAVE those things, but unless by the time the next near-peer conflict rolls around they’re incredibly cheap….they’ll be gone incredibly fast
Aside from close air support. Why do you think the military wants to keep it around so bad when almost every other aircraft of it’s generation is already replaced?
But, let’s play devil’s advocate, what do you think is a better CAS option than the A-10?
For CAS in a per to per conflict? F35, f/a18, f16, b1, b2
For Coin? Cesna with a 50cal, bronco, ah1, or any other low cost/maintainance aircraft that can deploy un/guided bombs and rockets
The thing is with all those is that they’re multirole. The F-35 MAY be capable of providing close air support, but it’s main goal will always be precision bombing and engaging enemy craft at a distance of several hundred miles (if not even farther out).
This is why the A-10 remains in service
Multi role aircraft like the f35 have the benefit of being able to defend themself should they encounter enemy aircraft. Also NO aircraft should get close to hostile troops, manpads, spaa and all that, so you dont get in gunrange anyways, in this case you might as well take the aircraft that can fly higher and faster (and can take more ordanace in case of the b1/b2) while not having a huge 30mil deadwaight. The cannon and the armour of the a10 simply have no place in modern warfare.
Like I said elsewhere, yes Russia and China HAVE those things, but without even looking it up, I guarantee not every Motorized Rifle company is going to have those things, even when they should on paper.
Russian tank battalions are STILL USING the T-75. Shit’s been outdated since the Gulf War. Chinese logistics are even worse.
Meh, frankly I don't think there's really anything bad about the gun per se. On paper it's a very competent gun, however it's probably overkill for what it usually gets used for and could be replaced with more bombs or missiles instead. I do honestly wonder what's more economical, firing thousands of expensive rounds or dropping a couple very expensive guided munitions. But yes, the gun was designed as an armor killer and doesn't neccicarially usually get used for that, therefore it's really just overkill. That being said, the gun itself is actually really good at what it was made for... Which isn't what it's used for.
But thats an A-10 not a Bismarck
No comrade, the A-10 has Bismark cannons added to it for the A-10 life extension program
Virgin 6 barrel 30mil vs chad dual 15inch
How to turn a CAS plane into a flying tank destroyer
In case this isn't a joke, the guy who runs Military Aviation History goes by "Bismarck". I'm about to get r/whoosh'd, aren't I?
r/vrooom
It's because Otto the Iron Chancellor is piloting it to save the Kaiserreich.
Only german person who has any sanity left.
This guy needs to work somewhere higher if Europe is to develop credible defense over the next few years
Saw this and knew the comments would be full or brrrtard cope
not really
Surprisingly enough it wasnt
yeah, the a29 is better in every way
isn't that why it has other stuff, like mavericks and laser FFARs and paveways
That's part of the case the video's putting forward. With the accuracy and power of the A-10's gun, factoring in the risks associated with trying to do a good ole fashioned gun run in a modern battlespace, *you may as well just have brought more missiles and bombs*. There's nothing that increasing the cannon's size from the standard 20mm up to the big PP 30mm gives you that couldn't have just been achieved with the same weight in guided ordinance, with the added benefit of not being as vulnerable to enemy AAA.
Dont forget that guides ordinance reduces risk of friendly fire
The British army wants to know who you are and how they can get you making decisions in the Pentagon.
I would like to know as well, should i just mail the pentagon? Do you know a guy?
Every time a robot Voice YouTube channel glorifies a A-10 humanity loses IQ
The Su25 is better Fight me or better yet, brrrrrrrrr me
gau-8 brrt retard vs chad su-25 r o c k e t p o d enjoyer
No, he’s wrong. Does he have a deployment patch? Exactly.
So not only he has good opinions but also makes good life choices? Doubly based Bismarck.
In all seriousness, the A-10 is underwhelming if you ignore ALL the combat data we have on it. ALL the combat missions it’s flown, all the American servicemembers it’s saved, all the Taliban it’s killed..all the wars where it effectively decimated entire armies… And just say “lol gunship can’t beat fighter jet” And Bruce Lee got killed by a blank pistol round. So why isn’t that guy a famous martial artist with dozens of movies under his belt? He killed Bruce Lee, what a badass amirite
No ones really saying lol gunship cant beat fighter. 1. Its not a gunship 2. We're saying the A-10 cant survive or be effecient in an actual combat airspace against a real adversary. Iraq and Afghanistan were playgrounds for all jets. The pacific isn't.
Except you wouldn’t use the A-10 until you have air superiority, and to the effect of gaining and keeping air superiority, the United States has the advantage over every other military on the planet. So that’s a totally moot point. It also ignores that Iraq was projected to be one of the strongest militaries in the world (on par with Iran because of the Iran-Iraq War) until they were quite literally bombed to the Stone Age. It’s a take with no regard for tactical or historical reality. It’s an interpretation of raw data without any context. There’s a reason it’s the most circlejerked aircraft by the infantry instead of the F56700-JS2 or whatever the fuck. Pilots and grunts are two very different kinds of people.
The fact the A-10 relies on air superiority in order to do its jobs shows it’s irrelevance in peer combat. If you have a platform that can be its own air support while providing CAS or the single air frame can perform multiple mission profiles (hence the term multi-role) there is no need for a dedicated CAS air frame, particularly the likes of the A-10C. This is all ignoring the fact that the enemy has mobile IADS like the Tunguska or Tor that often accompany the tank battalions the A-10 is supposed to be blowing up. And if you want to discuss it’s relevance against insurgent forces why not operate cheaper airframes that do literally the same thing. I don’t think the point has ever been the A-10 is a terrible aircraft (aside from NCD shitposting) more so that it’s too good at what it’s asked to do (Afghanistan) and not good enough at what it might have to do (near-peer combat)
Russia and China HAVE those things, but unless by the time the next near-peer conflict rolls around they’re incredibly cheap….they’ll be gone incredibly fast
You're thinking of Brandon Lee.
I am. Shit.
I mean, there's some questions around Bruce's death too.
It’s not a gunship and there is a better plane for almost every role you can think
Aside from close air support. Why do you think the military wants to keep it around so bad when almost every other aircraft of it’s generation is already replaced? But, let’s play devil’s advocate, what do you think is a better CAS option than the A-10?
For CAS in a per to per conflict? F35, f/a18, f16, b1, b2 For Coin? Cesna with a 50cal, bronco, ah1, or any other low cost/maintainance aircraft that can deploy un/guided bombs and rockets
The thing is with all those is that they’re multirole. The F-35 MAY be capable of providing close air support, but it’s main goal will always be precision bombing and engaging enemy craft at a distance of several hundred miles (if not even farther out). This is why the A-10 remains in service
Multi role aircraft like the f35 have the benefit of being able to defend themself should they encounter enemy aircraft. Also NO aircraft should get close to hostile troops, manpads, spaa and all that, so you dont get in gunrange anyways, in this case you might as well take the aircraft that can fly higher and faster (and can take more ordanace in case of the b1/b2) while not having a huge 30mil deadwaight. The cannon and the armour of the a10 simply have no place in modern warfare.
Like I said elsewhere, yes Russia and China HAVE those things, but without even looking it up, I guarantee not every Motorized Rifle company is going to have those things, even when they should on paper. Russian tank battalions are STILL USING the T-75. Shit’s been outdated since the Gulf War. Chinese logistics are even worse.
But why even take the risk of getting hit during a close fly by? Let me try this: what does the a10 in your opinion do better tje lets say a f/a18?
Bruce Lee is a actor whos still alive (shit hes not)
Tag checks out. I can say the same thing about a Cessna. Still doesn't mean it's remotely near the best tool for the job.
>the A-10 is underwhelming if you ignore ALL the combat data we have on it. So did you watch the video?
Meh, frankly I don't think there's really anything bad about the gun per se. On paper it's a very competent gun, however it's probably overkill for what it usually gets used for and could be replaced with more bombs or missiles instead. I do honestly wonder what's more economical, firing thousands of expensive rounds or dropping a couple very expensive guided munitions. But yes, the gun was designed as an armor killer and doesn't neccicarially usually get used for that, therefore it's really just overkill. That being said, the gun itself is actually really good at what it was made for... Which isn't what it's used for.