The F-35 vs The A-10: The Future of CAS
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- In my Pentagon Wars video, where I examined the popular view of the Bradley IFV, I mentioned that Combat Reformers mislead people and make such outrageous claims as "The A-10 is better than the F-35." Some people misinterpreted that, assuming that I was saying the F-35 was in fact better. The situation and debate surrounding these two aircraft is much more complex than that, and people were asking for me to make a video on them, so here we are. This is not meant to say that the A-10 is bad or useless, and it is not meant to say that the F-35 is perfect with absolutely no flaws.
Check the channel "About" section for the link to the creator of my profile picture.
Sources:
Gulf War Air Power Survey - Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
AN/APG-81 and the F-35 Lightning II - Northrop Grumman
Needs, Effectiveness, and Gap Assessment for Key A-10C Missions - RAND Corporation
Budget Request From the Department of the Air Force, [H.A.S.C. No. 112-104], February 28, 2012, 112-2 Hearing
F-35A Lightning II Spec Sheet - US Air Force
A-10C Thunderbolt II Spec Sheet - US Air Force
Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign (Letter Report,
06/12/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-134)
Airpower Applied - John Olsen
Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1975
Songs used (in order from first to last):
Blade Runner 2049 - Sea Wall Cover - AHMAD ALI
Dark Souls 3 - Vordt of the Boreal Valley
Halo 3: ODST - Rain (Deference for Darkness)
Sound mods:
Epic Thunder (Pre-release)
Armored Warfare Crew Voices
Sponsor: apexgamingpcs....
Second channel: / @spookstoon
Patreon: / spookston
Twitter: / spookston
Reddit: /u/spookston
Discord: See my Patreon page.
Twitch: / spookstonwt
Steam: goo.gl/BYQjC9
#f35 #aviation #a10
I'll be doing a Q&A soon, so if you have a question reply to this comment. Like I said in the video, this isn't meant to pick fights or anything, this is just my interpretation of the available data, so please keep comments civil. I'm also painfully aware how bad my flying is, I don't like flying jets in Arma and I don't have a joystick.
do you know if the maus will come back?
Favourite soviet/russian tank? Prototypes and test beds included.
Hows your life going?
I’m going to be honest, I just want the A-10 because it puts fear into our enemies and sometimes even our ally’s.
It’s psychological part is what really matters, because if you were to be a Russian and hear the loudest “brrrt” and explosions near you, would you be scared?
Plus the A-10’s survivability is honestly through the roof, but that still doesn’t mean it can’t die.
Witch game do you play when you wher saying about onion?
The lack of technology in A-10’s also contributed to the most friendly fire incidents in the Gulf War, due to the unreasonable demands this put on the pilots to try and differentiate targets.
to be fair, when you are doing CAS, the friendlies and enemies can get mixed up pretty easily, hence why JTACs are almost ubiquitous.
They also had nothing to get a better look at possible targets making some pilots bring binoculars
The a-10 carried avionics no more or less sophisticated than f/a-18's or f-16s at the time. The whole narrative is a bit of a myrh
@@teargass1849 sorta, but the A-10s cockpit is more built around CAS and the computers have a few abilities designed around CAS. Nowadays the F-18s and F-16s probably have the same abilities, but their cockpits are still less specialized for CAS.
@@sheeplord4976 "Probably" Your making a lot of guesses here, the A-10, F-16, and F/A-18 all had close air support in mind when the where constructed, moreso the A-10 and F/A-18 where as the F-16 was a multirole, but nontheless they all are well suited for the role, but in different contexts, the types of situation you would want an A-10 versus an F-16 are a bit different, and, as a Pilot, and having sat in at least the F-16's cockpit im not sure what you mean by "less specilized for CAS" unless your talking about the nose design.
According to warthunder the future of cas will be Chinese p47s
OOOOOOOOOOOSYEEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOO[[AYEEEEEEEE:: RUNTIME AND THE USE THE DATA ARE NOT ONLY HOI4 DATA AND THE DATA ARE USED IN A VARIETY THAT IS S AND CAN ALSO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON A SPECIFIC NUMBER AND THE NUMBER IS THE NUMBER ONE IS GOOD AT LEAST NOT TO BE A SOURCE FOR A TOTALED VALUE FOR A FEW MONTHS AND IT IS NOT THE WAY
@@pipsqeak7104 umm...
69th like
@@themedic7933 speaking about the Chinese, here's a bot.
@@bluecaptainIT Lol.
but the real question is, will the F35 be as good at mistaking warriors for BMP's as the good 'ol A10
*orange rockets intensify*
The A-10 was just 'showing off' its capabilities to friendly forces, nothing bad about that ;)
A neural network will be integrated into the plane, it will analyze friendly targets and engage them with air to ground munitions in fully automatic mode.
@@spacekraken666 friendly just means target that won't try to dodge
@@spacekraken666 that sounds like bs
Daily reminder that the titanium bathtub is not to protect the plane from getting shot down its to prevent the pilot from dieing when he is inevitably shot down or has his cockpit riddled with AA fire (in near peer conflicts before you say it).
Yeah exactly. Everything except the small autocannons that don't make it through the front armor and the early heatseekers that can't see the engines past the whale tail is still gonna do enough damage to route it. It's a glorified ejection seat, it can fly with near half the plane gone but it'll be flying away at that point, and it'd be better than ejecting over enemy territory in that case but the mythos of its invulnerability kinda goes to show the fallacy of thinking of combat survivability too much like a health bar in a video game all too widespread among enthusiasts.
@@northropi2027 I said once elsewhere to misquote a reply to the original mall ninja meme on the subject of duct taping extra plates to protect against 338 lapua rounds for his mall cop job(?!)
"if plan A is to take [direct anti Air hits] you need plan B."
@@5t3v0esque you need plan-b-somewhere-else
@@5t3v0esque Gecko45 is a legend. The funniest part was that he was a kid who listened to his dad talk about guns, so he decided to troll Glocktalk for fun. He grew up and became a co-owner of a gun shop.
the titanium bathtub doesnt protect a pilot from the aaa systems designed to turn that kind of armor into a nice colander. also are you trying to defend the a10 or advocate for the merit you believe is there?
Fully agree on all points. (Although no-one making videos on this ever gives the Spear missile from the UK on the F-35 its due when it comes to talking about the F-35's ground attack. Able to carry 8 internal missiles with a 150km range each, all of them capable of precision intercept of ground targets moving at 70mph (using Brimstone's seeker). It's basically a "kill anything" self-seeking missile for CAS, Anti-ship, SEAD, or conventional strike from ungodly ranges, eight of them, without breaking stealth at all. By far the most exciting munition for the F-35 in my opinion.)
SPEAR isn't the name of the missile, it's the requirement (Selected Precision Effects At Range Capability 3, or SPEAR 3 for short) the missile is intended to meet.
The other SPEAR requirements are as follows:
SPEAR Capability 1; Raytheon Paveway IV precision-guided bomb and subsequent improvements to include reduced collateral and penetrator warhead and enhanced capability against moving targets.
SPEAR Capability 2; a 50kg class powered missile, eventually Block 3, Brimstone 2, then Brimstone 3
SPEAR Capability 3; a longer range 100kg class weapon with the ability to be re-targeted in flight using two-way datalinks.
SPEAR Capability 4; upgrades to Storm Shadow to sustain it to its out of service date
SPEAR Capability 5; longer range replacement for Storm Shadow
That said SPEAR 3 will be a decent weapons and given its Micro-Turbojet, it is essentially a miniature cruise missile
@@hammerr LRASM is subsonic.
and it conna cost 2 billion silver lion to spawn it
Yeah spear is awesome
@@hammerr yeah
For every "the A-10 saved my squad!" story out there, there's a dozen more "the F(16/18) saved my life!"
Multirole fighters have more speed and deployment than A-10s. Doesn't matter what the flyboy is in, the troops always love having somebody above.
Except that's actually not true.
We have the stats for comparison. In all of the recent wars that all three aircraft were deployed, A10 outperforms F16/18, and by severe margin too. Over 90% of artillery kills and over 60% of tank kills are attributed to A10s.
@@MrDarth151 I can't find those stats actually. Now that I'm trying to lookup data again very few sources separate kills by plane, even lumping up F-15E kills up with the larger bombers' kills.
The benefit of stats reported by the Navy is that by-default they're *not* Hog kills, but they also tend to lump up Cobra kills with the Hornets and such.
Not that I can even find good data right now, but from what I recall finding previously multirole fighters do the heavy-lifting. Worth mentioning that I'm pretty sure Harriers from both American *AND* British forces got lumped into there as one enitity too though.
Probably true. I always knew when the A-10 saved my ass, but I never knew the other planes that saved my ass. I know one was an F-16 one time, but not the others. We’d call for a strike and a few minutes later a building was gone. Never heard or saw the aircraft that did it.
@@MrDarth151 that that makes absolutely no sense the F-16 performed more cas missions and at higher effectiveness the a-10 actually had a higher casualty rate
@@MrDarth151 in counter-insurgency the A-10 can be more effective. In modern conflict, the A-10 would just explode before it even gets within visual range of the enemy. The counter-insurgency role can also be filled by lighter, cheaper and easier to maintain aircraft like a Super Tucano, Alca etc.
Think of it this way, the A-10 would be a deathtrap in top tier, and in Warthunder the airspace is ALOT safer than it would be in a peer conflict irl. No strategic airspace defence systems, no MANPADS, no truly integrated base air defence systems, no AEGIS ashore or similar systems, and no AWACS vectored interceptors.
Speaking of which what battle rating you think it should be at
@@spartanx9293 the A-10 is hard to balance because a top tier it will be useless but any lower and it could be too good. I think would be at 10.0 or 10.3
@@Koyomix86 GOD NO, the a-10 is a bad plane but that's due to it's lack in defense against stationary AAA, with mobile AAA you whould be fucked to shoot it down.
@@Koyomix86 okay I don't think it should be lower than the A7 Corsair
@@spartanx9293 yeah probably not i gave a number too low
As a fun experiment: Go grab DCS A10CII, and DCS F16C. Spend a few weeks with both planes, and get good at engaging low threat ground targets. Then, go to an online server with a well designed IADS scenario. Try to accomplish a targeted strike against a well defended target (no air involved). You will find 2 things: A10 can get the job done with great care, skill, and time. Then try with F16. You will find F16 can get the job done, with great skill, a little less care, and half the time. Then do the following: Add 2 enemy MiG 21 bis to the scenario. The a10 can no longer get the job done. The F16 can. Then realize that there are half a dozen surface to air threats an F16 can effectively ignore due to its altitude and speed... while A10 is stuck low and slow enough to be engaged by AAA and manpads. The A10 is a monster, and if the area is permissive its great. But in all other scenarios the F16 is better... note I didn't mention F35. I don't even have to go to F35 levels to make the A10's shortfalls as a military tool obvious. F35's gun can kill 95% as many things as an A10's can... but why rant about that when in Gulf War 1 the F16's 20mm killed MORE ground threats? And it should be mentioned that the F16 suffered fewer losses in spite of a huge sortie rate... when one of the F16's jobs was SEAD: the only job more dangerous than CAS. (As CAS is striking ground units that can fire back with poor capability AA f fire, vs. SEAD where you actively pick fights with -high capability- AAA units so vulnerable CAS can try to ingress at all.
Yeah, you do pretty much have to design the scenario to favour the A-10 for it to come out on top. Offhand, you'd need something with vast hordes of low-capability enemies to make use of the A-10's prodigious ammunition capacity and loiter time ... I sincerely doubt the US's opposition will be so accommodating in real life. Vast hordes of enemies forming a conga line, I should add, so that the A-10 can reliably find them.
Doctrinally, SEAD belongs to rocket artillery in a multi-domain action.
Ask anyone in the military which they would rather see and its generally going to be the a10. The a10 has a scare factor to it that nothing else has.
@@MercShame Scare factor? Please. Maybe it's scary for an enemy that have no air defence but then everything is scary even the OV-10 Bronco. Add air defence into the equation and there you go, A-10 is useless. Don't listen to what militrary men say. They're not a very good source of information and just the fact that they serve doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. Most of the time they don't.
@@matsen1634 because a keyboard warrior knows what they are talking about.
I did a bunch of digging into SPAAG systems a while back, and looking at the CAS and COIN mission profiles.
When it comes to CAS in a peer or near peer conflict, it's in big trouble. In 1981, the 2K22 entered service with the USSR, and basically took every prerequisite the A-10 relied on for survival of its ground attack missions, and tossed it out the window. The 2A38M cannon could deliver much more fire power to a target then the 2A7 of the ZSU-23-4 could. The switch away from IR missiles to computer command guided missiles completely eliminated the safety the A-10 gained from having a lowered IR signature. Essentially, it's theoretical damage absorption potential was rendered null less then a decade after it appeared.
Today, this problem is even worse. The 2S38 SPAAG system runs with a heavily modernized S60 cannon. More troubling is that as it has no onboard radar, there isn't anything to give away its position as it receives intel from other units via its data links. The Sosna missile system Carrie's the same command guidance threat with an inability to reliably track down, but makes it worse by the fact that it can be mounted onto basically any APC or IFV in Russia's arsenal. And China hasn't been sitting idle on this matter either.
As for COIN, the A-10 is in an awkward position. It's one of the best options in the USAF arsenal, given its low operating costs. The problem is, the USAF evaluated the Super Tucano for the mission years ago as doing the job better overall. It could stay on station for longer, and costs substantially less to fly per hour.
The A-10 is a good plane, but it's not designed for today's battlefields.
Yup
Yep. The Gulf War shown the A-10s atrocious 'survivability'. It could barely handle MANPADs (which is the reason for all A-10 losses) back then. it would just continue to struggle now if it went against a capable enemy, especially that MANPADs and SHORAD systems are more common now.
Thank you for poking wholes in the legend behind this aircraft. It has achieved near god like status, so for many people they refuse to accept any criticism of it.
The A10 was designed as a mass produced, easily maintained, and cheap to replace aircraft. It was supposed to help stem the tide of a massive soviet armored invasion of Western Europe. It was supposed to destroy some tanks, get shot down. And then others would take its place.
The problem is, it is just too low and slow. Even in Iraq they were chewed up pretty bad a few times by the Iraqis. To the point where they actually grounded all a10 flights for a time. This thing just can’t handle being in a contested environment. MANPADS alone are just so extremely dangerous to an A10.
Good plane, blown way out of proportion though.
You did not do enough digging. SA-19 did not "enter service in 1981" (wiki stat?), in fact never reached more than piecemeal quantities in SSV. The bulk was to the end composed of SA-8s and ZSUs, both of which had proven vulnerable to combined A-10/AH-1/OH-58 attack tactics during the JAWS I/II trials. Pointing out that SHORADs can be mounted on APC/IFV chasses as something notable renders questionable your depth of subject matter knowledge. Neither Sosna nor 2S38 (especially not the latter pathetic excuse of a SPAAG) constitute dramatic improvements in the Russian SHORAD arsenal (key A-10 weapons continue to outrange them) and consequently are not a new, existential threat to established CAS doctrine which has remained fundamentally unchanged since the emergence of air power. And said doctrine is adamant about the tactical requirements (and sacrifices) to be made by aircraft tasked with supporting the close battle. The only point I will align with is the A-10 is unneeded for COIN tasking.
@@RainKing048 Your contemptuous dismissal of the A-10 via "statistics" is popular but doubtful if scrutinized. Few A-10s were downed to boot, while more survived battle damage, proving the design's sound conception. The proximate nature of the CAS mission is inherently far riskier than the comfort of loitering over a killbox at medium altitude like BAI strikers could (a luxury which was peculiar to ODS and would NOT exist over WP/European TOE). Ever since WW2 the CAS mission has entailed losses. It cannot be carried out any other way.
This was a very well thought out and structured video and you're absolutely right. Modern war is about having range (Blow them up before they can shoot back). In this department, the A-10 fails horribly. The A-10 (as was stated in the video) is very good when the enemy have minimal/ no counters to it but by that logic, A Sherman from world war two is better than a challenger 2 which we all know just isn't true.
"The A-10 (as was stated in the video) is very good when the enemy have minimal/ no counters to it but by that logic, A Sherman from world war two is better than a challenger 2 which we all know just isn't true."
That logic can't really be applied to tanks, since not only are anti tank weapons easier and cheaper which makes getting them a no brainer for any insurgent/terrorist group, but tanks are also more likely to be fired upon and are much easier targets than planes.
If a missile is shot towards a plane atleast it has some chance to dodge and get away. whereas a tank getting fired upon by an anti tank rocket/missile or hits a mine, has to rely on it's armor to take in the hit.
Everyone likes the A10 because it looks cool and stuff. That's why they don't want it to go.
I mean, if you're scrounging for whatever you can get, one Sherman is better than no Challengers, and while one Challenger can beat multiple Shermans, one Challenger can't be in as many places at once as multiple Shermans.
@@dfct9494 as someone who isn't brain dead I realize that the a10 is a much more economical choice the f 35 is all well and good until you realize that they are slow to make, extremely expensive and don't give nearly enough of an advantage to weren't thr price. You may call me awful for rather having airmen in a less advanced plane but then I would have to ask why the American military agrees with me and not you. I'd rather lose a few more airmen than hundreds of troops on the ground because thr best is never the most practical.
@@ItsFinRocket Thats what he means by none or close to no counters so the enemys dont have anti tank weapons do you see his point now?
We all love the A-10, we will just be sad when it's retired and replaced with the F-35
I love A-10, but sometimes people are so overrated it so much it kinda ridiculous.
a10 isnt overrated. it beat an f16 in a dogfight so therefore it can beat multi trillion dollah f35 in a dogfight. therefore a10 6th gen
*sarcasm*
@asdrubale bisanzio if you're complaining about Overkill you don't need an A10 either that's what the a29 super tucano is for
@asdrubale bisanzio Reaper is better.
@Jack the Gestapo LMFAO what the duck
So A-10 is best when the US goes seal clubbing, but against a nation more competent, you would go with a F-35.
if im not worng they reactivated the bronco for that porpuse,and it works very well
not really, f35 is better while seal clubbing as well. A-10 is pretty useless.
@@franciscoostos8527 There were a few for OIR in a light attack role. COIN is starting to go down a route of "do COIN like the A-10, but cheaper" with aircraft like the Super Tucano coming along.
I would agree to some extent. The A10 is old and may seem useless but it still has its uses if they weren't they would be retired already by now.
Pretty much yes. And since all they do is seal club, the a10 is fine right now. Americans just need an excuse for more military projects, their economy depends on it lmfao
I'm just surprised you actually had to explain this to people. I'm far from knowledgable on military stuff (checking the number of sorties of each aircraft and the casualties for example) but my knowledge on just the specifics of the A-10 and the F-35 were alone enough to figure out ages ago that the F-35 would outcompete with the A-10 in a modern war. I suppose it's just that the A-10 is true and tested and the F-35 is this new thing. it's just like when the F-35 was first being rolled out and everyone called it garbage for not being good for maneuverable fighting despite the fact it was never designed for that
People are stupid though and keep simping on the A-10 thinking its indestructible
@@v0id683 nobody ever said that besides you
@@v0id683 i support the a10 because its like the Sherman durring world War two. People said it was bad because it wasn't as good as insert tank here. Thing is though, life isn't warthunder. Shermans barely fought all those supposedly supperoir tanks. Cost effectiveness is the most important thing a weapon of war can have. The f 35 doesn't have that. It may be good against planes but it has to use all the same weapons the a10 does and let me tell you, its not worth it.
@@casematecardinal the F-35 is much faster than the A-10 and does it's operation much higher. What does this mean? It means that the Abdul with the RPG won't be able to shoot it down, unlike the A-10, which flies slow and low. The F-35 also has a similar, if not better CAS loadout than the A-10 and while being armed with a comparably worse cannon, it can still engage light vehicles, just like the A-10. It may not have the same psychological effect, but overall, the F-35 is better than the A-10
>true and tested
By friendly fire in Gulf War, or by F-111s and F-15Es racking more a2g kills in same Gulf War?
People don’t realize that the A10 would get bodied in a conflict between near peer states it’s kind of like the heavy tank problem in warthunder it’s built for yesterday’s war which makes it excellent for fighting less technically developed threats but not so much vs modern militaries
Believe me they do. They even realized it at the time of its inception. All CAS aircraft are meant for a fate of high casualties. They also happen to be extremely important, and require purpose-specific design that multirole aircraft cannot match.
@@becauseiwasinverted5222 Except the F-35 can match it and then some. Faster plane, better response, better range (very important for CAS), more survivable, and can carry more and more modern ordnance. Not only is it a multi-role aircraft that can compete, but it can do better.
@@zackbobby5550 You aren't very familiar with the CAS ConOps are you. The comparison between the F-35 and the A-10 is wrong because the frame of reference is wrong. The F-35 is a better interdictor, not a better CAS airplane. It is meant for high-threat, door-kicking strike missions to dismantle hostile IADS and create BAI corridors through which friendly air flows to attack enemy reserves and rear areas. The A-10 is a CAS airplane, tied to support of the close battle, at the FLOT, under the ground commander. A role which demands high physical resistance to ground fire (which the F-35 does not have), long loiter times (no afterburning engine could win vs the A-10 on loiter), slow speed maneuverability (no contest), uncompromising pilot visibility (same), and high firepower (F-35 doesn't have the clearance/space margins for large weapons loads, nominal figures are deceptive). What neither you nor 99% of the bozos in the comments are not getting is you cannot project the F-35's other virtues onto the CAS mission because they are by design intended for a fundamentally different mission set. All the high-tech gizmos work great for high threat strike tasking, but not for CAS. Just like you can't force the A-10 to do strategic bombing or SEAD, you also can't force the F-35 into doing CAS.
@@becauseiwasinverted5222 Damn guess you didn't watch the video. CAS does NOT mean "low and slow to the ground". The F-16 flew more CAS missions than the A-10, and to greater effect. You can do CAS missions from a satellite firing guided missiles. The A-10 will get bitch slapped in any sort of remotely mofern engagement.
@@zackbobby5550 Damn, guess you didn't realize me still disagreeing with that notion despite what the video said doesn't mean I didn't watch it. CAS absolutely implies physical & organizational proximity ("detailed integration with the fire and movement..." etc etc, per the DoD CAS JP) with supported forces and by extension proximity with the enemy. Again, it is part of *the close battle* . You need familiarize yourself with the background before you talk about concepts you don't understand, otherwise you'll be spouting drivel like "You can do CAS missions from a satellite" (sure you can, and have 0% accuracy, 0% responsiveness and 100% fratricide for 1000% the cost).
"The F-16 flew more CAS missions than the A-10" Correlation fallacy, you don't know the reasons for that but you assume they have to do with the A-10 being inferior. In reality, the F-16 fleet is much larger and you are not factoring deployments, availability (kinda favors bigger fleets), etc.
"and to greater effect" This is beyond arbitrary and completely unsupportable unless you have the kind of clearance that lets you review AARs en masse (you don't...).
"The A-10 will get bitch slapped in any sort of remotely mofern engagement." You mean like fighting the USSR's tank armies? Or Russia's, which are basically the former but refurbished?
I keep telling these exact things to my friends but all they say is "but A-10 brrrrrt, F-35 crap"
and expensive
@@ariqasadam199 which is funny because people want all this new and modern tech stuffed into the new aircraft and still expect it to cost less than a Cessna 152 :D
@@ariqasadam199 it's more expensive but also a much more cost effective option. the missions an F35 can fulfill mean it can replace a number of aircraft and elevate any aircraft that it serves alongside without the need for expensive upgrades. Fewer types of aircraft means simpler logistics for maintenance and training of personnel. Don't be fooled by the per unit cost, when you understand the big picture of military spending it's easy to see where the value of the F35 lies.
@@regardlessrampage F-35 flight cost per hour is already expensive and it also cant be deployed when the weather is bad while the F-22 raptor cant make a carrier lander
@@ariqasadam199 isn't the F22 on track for retirement? That thing is designed around a war doctrine that is just unfeasible. Modern american doctrine for near peer forces is all about atrittable forces. The F35 is expensive on it's own but it's biggest contribution for that cost is how much it elevates any friendly forces on its datalink. An F35 doesn't need to be the killer, its value as terminal guidance for other aircraft or ground/marine based systems is unprecedented. An F35 is an invisible set of eyes and ears capable of flying ahead of a main force and locking targets for them.
That feature alone just extended the service potential of every legacy fighter in service. When combined with things like the Advanced Battle Management System the F35s potential will be on full display.
Phhffttttt bob semple is the best plane ever
Agreed.
Bob semple doesn’t go brrr tho
Wait... wasnt it a submarine?
@@SomewhatSummarized Bob semple has the biggest burr tho
@@mr.AndreiC I thought it was a long range underwater aircraft carrier...
I heard they don't even use the A-10 cannon much anymore, using more missiles instead.
The Gun is the most donger close friendly weapon. The A-10 now have laser guided rocket but it still has a splash zone of a football field. So cannon is handy to spread out insurgents and destroy cover.
They dont a ton but they deifntly do. When it's used it's more used for the fear factor it inflicts where even if it doesnt hit anyone the sound and impact will make any insurgent on the ground flee
You use the gun if there's still one poor idiot still alive after the stores are empty
@@robertdarnell9080why use the gun at the risk of loosing the aircraft when infantry can do it?
@@spartan-ml7nk Why let boots die when you can give a cluster the hose? Are we losing sight of the support part of close air in the age of drones and detachment? Is a compressor blade worth more than the objective? Maybe it should be changed to 'distant maybe help' instead.
The A-10 is good at COIN operations but the it's very costly to operate. The US military was looking into replacing the A-10 with the A-29 Super Tucano, there were a two other competitors but I hear that the A-29 was the one the Air Force was considering the most, as it can perform the same job at a far cheaper cost and fewer maintenance requirements. However, I've not hear anything about that for couple years now and don't know were that program has gone. I suspect with the US pulling out of Afghanistan the shift away from a CT focus in the military that it's probably fallen through at this point.
One if the other entries was a modernized OV-10 Bronco, the Vietnam-era observation/light attack aircraft. There's still a shitton of them lying around, and with improved engines it's proved to be an exceptional general-purpose aircraft. Twin engines for redundancy, high-wing design for maximum visibility, easily upgradeable avionics, more hard points than God, and a small cargo area in the rear fuselage that could hold a stretcher.
@@griffinfaulkner3514 and the Bronco has some insane STOL capabilities.
If I'm not wrong, USAF won't replace the A-10 with the A-29 anymore, but the Super Tucano is still being considered by the US Special Operations Command as an option for CAS in such operations.
And, besides what you said, the A-29 also has the capability to stay over the battlefield, and consequently supporting troops, for much longer time than the A-10 could. The A-10 is iconic and beautiful, but it's an overkill for counter terrism operations and outdated for its primary task: kill enemy armor
If they manage to fit a GAU-8 in a Super Tucano I'm down with it.
@@meta.5studios so an overpriced and over complicated airbrake system?
As always, the F-35 is one of the best planes for the strategy for the US Armed Force, as is the B1, the F22, the F-15, F18 and B2. The A-10 has it's niche, but it's been superceded, at least for nation v nation fighting.
that's why they are already looking to replace it? f35 program is a failure. It can do very few of what it was designed for, and that at an insanely high cost. a10 is completly outdated, but f35 is not suitable to replace a10 being too expensive and having not enough capacity if it want to stay hard to notice.
@@tigerbesteverything what do you mean theyre replacing it?
@@tigerbesteverything Please provide sources that is not from twitter, tumblr or a competing military company that has a reason to bash on it.
@@tigerbesteverything they're not going to replace the F-35 way beyond 2050.
They will retire the F-22 though, starting in 2030.
The F22 needs to be retired fast. Nothing against the plane its just the way the budget went. Since it was axed the plane has not gotten any real upgrades that even 4th gen planes are being given now. Not a single factory is setup to make them so there will be no B,C,D variants. Its basically an expensive fleet with expensive cost that will never see a cent go its way.
If they did upgrade it then its another story.
We all already know what is the best CAS Plane.....
It's po-2.
(Don't kill me)
Wrong it's the fairy swordfish
There is any air museum I used to volunteer at which has an airworthy Po-2
Bob semple tank airplane?
Bs! We all know the M4 Sherman is the best CAS Jet bomber
@@spartanx9293 the swordfish world be better at naval strikes than cas
I think you should have gone a little more into the doctrinal and technological differences that also informed the design and original planned usage of the A-10, which was when MANDPADS were far less prevalant/powerful and the Tunguska hadn't come into service yet, and with a lot of the worrying being about dealing/countering massive Soviet pushes into Western Europe.
That and the A-10 was supposed to be a suicidal flying tank destroyer that can occasionally make it back.
I am a bit peeved that people call the A-10 a CAS plane when it is more of a (saying it again) flying tank destroyer that can do CAS after all the ATGMs are spent.
@@crocidile90 My guess with suicidal they probably meant a loss rate along the lines WWII era heavy bombers.
@@crocidile90 It's pretty much suicidal. The expected life expectancy rates of the A-10 (~700) in a Cold War gone hot scenario was 0% in two weeks.
To be fair, any Cold War gone hot scinario, all vehicle life span is really low.
But A-10 still super overrated, and I, who loved it, hated people who overrated it too much.
@@DOSFS What changed your mind on it exactly? I have also noticed that people become incredibly defensive whenever criticism of the A10 is brought up. They take it so personally they it makes it difficult to even have a discussion.
Uhoh
You're going to anger the Brrrrt squad!
Glad to finally hear someone say the Hog isn't exactly up to snuff these days, while I like it, it's kind of overrated lmao
Big gun is cool, doesn’t overtake the fact that it’s slow, old, designed for a doctrine that is obsolete, is much less survivable in a modern airspace.
If you absolutely need a big bomb truck that isn’t stealthy, a strike eagle will deliver cas better than an a10.
Perfect for insurgents tho
It's the same as wanting to keep around the m4 Sherman's when we could instead be using m48 pattons
@@JohnBrowningsGhost F15-EX is rolling out to be a missile truck so exactly that
@@VunderGuy *is soyjacking it haRd*
I feel like A10 Fanboys forget the existance of attack helicopters
Average apache enjoyer's
virgin a10 fan vs chad super tucano enjoyer
Tucano > A-10
That's facts
uahhhhh super tucano papi 😩
"The A10 certainly has its merits, but it's not worth keeping the aging aircraft in service..."
B52: *sweats nervously*
more upgrades just signed off lol
Thanks for mentioning the McCain bit. I cringed when the McCain said don't insult my intelligence to the lady who said the B1 lancer was top dog in CAS missions, especially when everyone in the comments cheered his reluctance to accept facts, and shit talked the senator or whatever the other person was. I love the A-10, but facts are facts man.
Isn't/Wasn't McCain a Vietnam veteran on the Douglas Skyhawk?
@@martijn9568 Yes, and prior to that he flew the A-1 Skyraider. He was literally a thoroubred CAS pilot.
@@martijn9568 He also had a lot of character flaws. He once flew his aircraft into the water. Accidents happen, people get disoriented, etc but the lied about it and said he had lost engine power. Well, the turbine blades were tested and they shown heat treatment from being dumped into water while the engine was working. He only got to where he was because daddy was an Admiral.
People lie about the USS Forrestal fire though, don't believe those people.
@@robertharris6092 and not aircraft that takes too long to get to the combat zone?
@@robertharris6092 It’s better than an aircraft that can’t identify targets without the pilots having binoculars, can’t identify friendlies from the enemy, is too slow to get the battlefield, can’t reach all battlefields, and gets shot down by radar guided SPAA.
There was an argument i saw years ago to refit the A10 fleet into firefighting aircraft. I 100% agree. Its time to move on. I love A10s, an A10 pilot saved my uncles life in Afghanistan, but shes an old bird. P47's were loved, so were B25s, but they got replaced when they became outdated. So too must we replace the A10. Its just time. The modern battlefield moves too quickly. Retire the A10 fleet, turn them into firefighters. In that role the airframe could last for easily another 50 years or more. Its time.
Plus how else would we get the next brrrrrrrrt ground strike plane if we dont retire the A10? Imagine a plane with TWO avengers.
A-7D with gunpods mounted?
@@igoryst3049 right idea, wrong era. I was more being facetious by imagining an A10 but with 2 guns in the root of the wings.
Yeah if they make the f35 better? Maybe
@@garudalead yeah
The kickback thou
@@seantaggart7382 im not even saying make the F35 better. It can already use better weapons systems than the A10 uses. Im saying make better planes. Why stop at the F35? When a gun becomes obsolete we make a better one. You dont see people begging to bring back the Garand or the Sharps Rifle. They had their day. Lets get something WORTHY of the A10s legacy.
As much as we love the A10 it’s been long outdated for modern warfare, most other aircraft can do its job just as good and better. When it inevitably just gets retired and you miss it, boot up DCS
It’s basically just a matter of does it have to worry about AA or aircraft. If not then it’s effective. But honestly that could go for any plane period. Hell a Cessna with a guy throwing grenades out of the plane will be effective if there isn’t AA. So really as much as I despise the F35 I can’t deny that it’s superior in every way to the A-10
Eh, what other airframe can loiter as long while carrying a similar payload? What makes you think modern warfare will be anything other than what we've seen? I think smaller scale proxy conflicts are more feasible than all out conventional warfare across all or most world powers. Has the a10c not been outfitted with up to date tech?
@@g00gleisgayerthanaids56 Ukraine is what modern warfare will be. When that tension boils over and Russia invades the A-10 will have no place in a war like that. It will get shredded by every type of Flanker, SAM and SPAA Russia has under its belt. The A-10 is the right plane for the wrong time. It simply cannot keep up with other multi roles. Loiter time is good when dealing with environments with low to no anti-air capacity, which is gonna be rare in today’s conflicts especially now that nations with higher military capabilities become the center of attention. Multi-roles like the F/A-18 are faster, more agile, can carry similar if not more payload but most importantly can effectively deal with hostile air power. The C variant of the A-10 is too little too late
@@mcdonnelldouglasfa-18c49 you talk like it's a video game... like modern air defense is everywhere and can be anywhere... still, you didn't answer my question, what other airframe can carry as much or loiter as long? Those are both very important for cas. You judge the a10 as a multirole airframe while ignoring the fact that it isn't and judging it as such is just plain asinine or are you going to start spewing diarrhea of the mouth about how pistols are completely obsolete on the battlefield and therefore have no place? Let's be honest, modern sub guns are compact enough and their high rates of fire and higher capacity offers an order of magnitude higher force multiplier... but it isn't just about the effectiveness or lack thereof now is it?
Or, now hear me out on this, is there more to warfare than just hard and soft factors of military equipment?
The reformers catch a lot of flak for their ignorant views of technology on the battlefield but one thing they understand, is that technology fails especially the more complex it is and usually at the worst times. An anecdote if you'll allow me... on patrol in Afghanistan, our mission is to push just up to a known ambush point and then stop and see if taliban will push to us and ambush anyways. Our modern gps and blue force trackers weren't functioning correctly, we got a call from scouts in overwatch that we had pushed past our line and were about to walk right into the ambush. My lt couldn't even finish the return transmission stating that we were nowhere near the ambush point before rpgs and small arms fire erupted. Our bft and gps was tracking about 100 or so meters off of our position. My forward observer took a round to the ass (almost hit the femoral artery) and some shrapnel to the back of the head (no helmet would have meant goodnight for my buddy). Don't get me wrong, modern tech absolutely belongs on the battlefield and in our aircraft, but it is finicky and anyone who's ever been in a tic knows it can't be purely relied upon.
@@mcdonnelldouglasfa-18c49 one more question if you'll allow me, you have a multi tool and a screwdriver right? If you need a fastener removed, what will you use? The multitool (Leatherman, Gerber, etc.) or the screwdriver? Which works better? The tool specifically designed to remove fasteners? Or the multitool which was designed to function as multiple different tools in one neat little package?
If there's one thing I learned from those clipped comments, it's that Spookston discovered the dark theme about 5 months ago.
I think the role of the A-10 will only be occupied by the F-35 against an enemy with high tech. For low intensity conflicts that role will be filled by the AC-130, Strike Eagle, various UAVs, AH-64, possibly a gunship based on the V-22, V-280 or even SB-1 and cheaper Turbo prop machines.
The F-35 is not cost effective in this role and cost is the major point for most militaries, the F-35 is expensive as it is so it should only be used when necessary. It's a lovely and capable Jet, especially as a command center for future UAVs due to it's high tech capabilities. But this isn't a job for it.
no way dude. A-10 would only be used against enemies with really low tech. relatively cheap F-16 aircraft are far more technologically capable for the task, and can perform CAS missions with lower casualties than the A-10.
there are planes other than the F-35, A-10 and gunships.
@@danielsteger8456 the F-16 is not as well suited to that role as the Strike Eagle that I mentioned. Especially due to lower range and lower load capacity
@@DefinitelyNotEmma disproves your point either way.
@@danielsteger8456 it doesn't?
My point was that the F-35 is too expensive to be used in any conflict that isn't against a high tech enemy. And that there are alternatives to the F-35 in form of the F-15E for example just proves my point.
@@danielsteger8456 That or after we have air Superiority like in Desert Storm.
Those arma cuts made me remember the countless times i've died in my wipeout trying to kill aa with it's macer agm, then realising i can do the same without dying by just using the F/A-181
Reformers are wrong, and the A10 is massively over hyped.
Based and NCD-approved
finally someone said it
some points you missed though
the A-10 was designed to fly into Fulda, kill two or three tanks, and not make it back
the Pentagon estimated that the entire A-10 fleet would be wiped out in a Fulda rush scenario
Honestly the A-10 is quite overrated. Most of its armor kills were gotten with AGMs, and does it matter which plane fires a precision weapon? I wouldn't say so.
And for CAS... I'll quote Lazerpig, "One milimeter in the stick is the difference between a medal, a court martial or a warcrime." The A-10 is not a platform that should be engaging in proximity to friendlies
The A10C is a good plane. But the best CAS platform? No!
i hate people who say "we want the A10 in WT also" its just not possible u need a jammer aircraft or something to stop SPAA, the A-10 isnt fast and not meant to eat SAMS also people in war thunder would target it just like the G-91's no one likes dying to them so again everyone would look up and shoot it down also gaijin would need to increase the bullet range cause in WT the Vulcan on the Phantoms can only reach to ground 2-3km 1-2mile, i genuinely hate watching the WT dev streams cause that's all people want. ik this vid isnt about WT but still.... kinda the same with the FrogFoot but the sukhoi-25 is a little bit faster.
A-10 can easily outrange any SPAA and SAM currently in WT with its guided weapons
the low speed is a big plus in target aquisition.
I think that the A-10 would be very well balanced at 10.0/10.7. I can see it bringing a slightly better capability than the current A-7
@@IronPhysik the low speed will also aid spaa in yeeting it out of the sky. At least the a7 can somewhat rely on its speed. The a10 is just fat.
Wrong.
By the time the a10 was fielded it was facing Sam's, radar guided spaa, even shoulder mounted missiles! The way any pilots without stealth overcame, even today is propper planning and execution of avoidance tactics. Bam! for a plane designed around the wooded mountainous regions of Europe or maybe even other parts of the world, the a10 was and still is what's needed without the possibility of loosing an 80+ mill plane. Also idfk if you realize but cas in WT especially now have to fight mach4+ missiles that unlike rl can be optically guided with the players mouse! Planes either fly erratically around 400-500mph by the end while stalling dodging missiles, or just do super fast passes that put them against gunfire.
The optimal method of countering radar spaa is the a10 100%.
You get the slow speed maneuverability to conform to any cover provided, get the visibility of a bubble canopy, excellent bombload with a range of options of bombs to shrikes to mavericks to lgbs, good survivability where the plane keeps flying without turning into an unextinguishable fireball and the gun that can counter any spaa from maybe even their max gun range if gaijin decides to model it right. The gun is also the main tool against tanks as long as you are out of bombs, want to stay fast and light, are stock, or just like the gunplay rather than bombing. Take it from someone who's spent like 4k hours doing cas in top wt to tell you a plane as fast as a g91, with the turn rate of an f2a3, the gun that can kill any tank if used right, and the survivability of a b17 (atleast in movies) is literally exactly what we need! And everyone needed their counter alongside it wayyyyy back in 2019! Just saying, so what if there are more advanced jets or counters to the a10 in the skies of wt! I thought we weren't supposed to be scared to the shitty 1970s plane that goes Burrrrrrrrrt. . . Or is it actually competitive? You decide :)
@@mamarussellthepie3995 but again FLARAKPZ/RAD will onetap it just like all of the SPAA's with missiles and flr/chff doesnt do anything cause most players dont use radar to use the missiles and remember not fast at all
What people don't realize is that in cas staying power isn't all that important of a factor.
Yes, if you let it, an A10 can stay above a theater for a while and take out a dozen different targets, something that the F35 can't.
However, in a realistic setting it's extremely unlikely for an area for an area to be so saturated with targets to require that many attacking runs, but at the same time so unprotected that an A10 can actually stay that long without being shot down.
If you only have a handful of targets the F35 will be faster and safer. If you have lots of targets but hardened AA (and let's be real, who would send out a large number of forces without AA support?) the F35 will still be better because the A10 won't be able to operate at all.
yes but have you played my custom video game mission where i set up a massive turkey shoot so i can cite myself as a source
To the guy who said no American platform has the same CAS ability as the A-10, I invite you to consider:
F-16C/CJ
F-15E
B-1B
F/A-18C++
AV-8B Harrier II+
AC-130U/J
F/A-18E/F
One thing Spookston didn't mention that I think is important is that the A-10s will have to be retired one very big reason whether we like it or not: Metal Fatigue.
The 90 degree wings that allow the A-10 to carry a large load and make tight turns at slow speeds take a lot of strain with even normal flight missions. Just last year the Air Force had to start replacing the wings of their entire A-10 fleet, but that really isn't fixing the problem because the joints are still there and these new wings will get worn down too.
To sum it all up the A-10 has had a long and distinguished career and now the airframes are getting so old they may no longer be able to fly without their wings falling off so the Air Force will have to find a replacement: the F-35A.
It's like trying to bring an old veteran back into combat.
Sure they have the experience, they were great even, but age catches up eventually.
The A10 is great when there's nothing that can fight against it. Great platform but wont work in a conventional war as efficiently as it does in counter insurgency/fighting asymmetrical forces.
@@robertharris6092 why
Waste of money is all that is
I really hate thus arugement
Like why do u need to deep throat the a10 everywhere when a guy with a man pad could pop it out the sky
The arugement you make is brain ded
*A-10 gets added to War Thunder*
Warrior players: *sweats profusely*
Bro it's a BMP I swear
my man telling the future
I love the A-10 but much like the mythical F-14 people have a fondness for nostalgia, great take on this subject!
Wrong. The F-14D could have easily served into the 2010+. Only reason it got retired was because of the maintenance price. Don’t be fooled the F-14D was VERY capable! The plat form was getting really good upgrades!
The F-14 would probably still be an effective plane in near-peer or peer situations. Especially since it would've experienced service life extension upgrades like AST21.
Not every enemy plane is a top tier fighter.
"brrrrrttt"
"It's a plane built around the gun"
"Titanium bathtub"
The A-10 is an airplane that has survived on lobbyists and a strange unearned cult following. It is a meme aircraft, and nowhere near as effective as people claim. The strike eagle does CAS better. The F-16 has flown more CAS missions alone in the last 8 years.
but A-10 go brrrrrrr
but A-10 go brrrrrrrrr!
@@danielsteger8456 F-16 go brrr too
I think the A-10 really gets its status because it's super easy to recognize, not only is the visual profile unique but also the sound of its cannon makes it so even non-aviation people can tell what the plane is. if you show someone a video of a F-35 and a A-10 even if they know about the F-35 they are gonna be less likely to recognize it. It is just a much less unique airframe (to those who don't know a lot about aircraft). Add to that all the videos of A-10s and the brrt and you get a lot of people knowing about the A-10, regardless of effectiveness. Its also partially the rule of cool in a way, the A-10 sounds cool so people will automatically remember it and think its effective over a plane droping bombs from thousands of ft.
The F-16 is overrated in my opinion.
But I agree that the Strike Eagle doesn't get nearly enough credit. Especially because it's so well suited for its missions and will stay in service for a long time as the F-15SE
C - Cuntish
A - Air
S - Strategies
If you're still skeptical, try Wargame Red Dragon.
There you'll understand why you won't have time to use the heavy gun for CAS.
And even there, the AA are nerfed for gameplay reasons
I feel like comparing the a-10 and f-35 is like comparing a knight in shining armor and a well-camouflaged sniper.
Hope you mean that the sniper camo is in flashy pink and that it's sniper rifle don't shoot at the target and it cost billions
@@ommsterlitz1805 i mean the knight, like the a-10 has an iconic suit of armor and a big flashy weapon, but would get absolutely shredded on the battlefield because its an attractive target and anybody with a gun (basically everyone) can laugh at their armor. The sniper, while more expensive and not as flashy or heavily armored, doesn't have to be because he is hard to detect and can do just as much if not more damage from a much safer range.
@@ommsterlitz1805 Don't understand that flashy pink statement but the F-35 can perfectly launch weapons , the original timelines was very ambitious and due to goalpost shifting alot of money into redesign but after the rebaslining of 2010 it has been on track
These issues with the a10 can also be applied to the ac-130 gunship. They are mainly used in very specific cases were its more than likely the opposition has next to nothing to counter it like other aircraft, radar assisted spaa, surface to air missles, etc.
In a near peer fight, an AC-130 would get vapourized immediately.
AC-130s have been used to take out SAM sites in conflicts as recent as 2018.
@@kerbalairforce8802 And AC-130s have also been shot down by SAMs, what is your point?
@@kerbalairforce8802 source?
That's why only SOCOM use them these days
I think Lazerpig's video cut to the chase far more succinctly and focused on how the A-10 is just far too likely to accidentally attack friendlies which completely negates the point of ground attack if your aircraft suppress your own troops as much as the enemy troops.
The only way to cut down on fratricide (not to mention prevent war crimes) is to have good enough sensors to see what the hell you are attacking, the F-35's sensor suite is just far more important than the supposed firepower advantages of the A-10.
Also, no one has mentioned this but laser guided bombs like Paveway I are not very expensive and a full ammo load for the A-10 is not that cheap. The constant limit with close air support is knowing where the friendlies are and where the enemies are and making sure no non-combatants are in the crossfire. The A-10 just struggles far too much in this capacity, while it's had laser targeting pod upgrades it's nowhere near the capability of the F-35. F-35 has ground mapping radar, it's just not a fair fight.
It’s imperative that we replace the A-10 with the AM-113 AeroGavin.
If you want to learn more on this topic a really recommend Lazerpig's two part series on the A10. Great youtuber with his very... Original? Style of video, and very entertaining!
🤣
Lazerpig is great
I think this is overlooked, the a-10 was only active since the gulf war and beyond. This means that the enemy was technologically inferior and oftentimes lacked the resources to take down an a-10. If we were to test it against a European major power it wouldn’t do so hot as expected. All members of the security council have more than enough firepower to massacre an a-10. I love the a-10 like most people, but it’s time for a change.
I mean yea. But doesn’t the A-10 have the highest friendly casualty rate? Also, I would much rather have a F-35 or a F15E. Purely because the GAU-8’s accuracy is dogshit, and the only reason the A-10 is still in service in my opinion is morale.
The A-10, while it's a god at COIN, is seeing the sun set on it's usefulness now that we're out of those kinds of conflicts. MAYBE it could see a role against something like Iranian small boat floatillas, but that's it. I say this as a man who absolutely loves the A-10 and lives near a base of them. I fully expect the A-10 to be phased out for the F-35 in active warzones. the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve will probably keep flying them for a while longer, but that's it. everything has it's day in the sun, and that sun always sets. it's a fact of life.
There's one thing that I feel isn't being factored in appropriately:
The Immediacy of the threat of an A10 Cannon.
Assume you're a grunt squad on the ground taking fire, and you call in 2 lots of Air support - one an F35 with smart munitions, the other an A10 with a big ol' BRRRRRT.
I'll grant you that the F35 will be better in terms of Accuracy and target area effect.
But it won't make the bad guys flinch or take cover nearly as well as a cannon burst. Granted with a smart munition, they won't know what hit them and sometimes that's a good thing, but other times having several 30mm care packages Pepper them can stop them right then and take cover or at least stop engaging the ground troops.
That's where I think the discourse is being unkind to the A10, it currently provides something that the F35 cannot.
You could make the same argument about the retiring of Battleships and the Naval Gunfire Support argument too. Yes we have Tomahawks and very smart 4/5 inch projectiles, but nothing quite has the end-user experience of a 16 inch Shell - see the video footage of Iraqis surrendering to the spotter drone because they knew what came next.
As far as the A10 vs F35 - I'll admit I'm a Diehard Warthog Fan boy, and I agree in a modern battlespace, the A10 gets shredded by manpads, modern Fighters and even modern AA - the last time however the US faced a military with Comparable equipment was probably Korea/Vietnam - so I think this trade off currently is worth it. My opinion is thus:
The F35 is certainly a better overall aircraft, it's multi-role capability is better - it can do more things than the A10, however I feel that the A10 as a specialist Aircraft does a number of things which the F35 does not currently do.
I mean yeah it makes them hide but that's useless who cares if the enemies are psychologically damaged when there still probably gonna KILL SOME OF YOUR SQUAD after they get out of hiding so saying its a thing it can do that the F35 cant is yes correct but that is actually another downside of the A-10
@@kousand9917 so, Suppressive fire, in your opinion, has no validity?
You do realize that all the time the bad guy is taking cover and not shooting at you that you are either repositioning (to flank/press the assault) or tactically withdrawing.
You aren't sitting around waiting for the enemy to start up again.
@@MajesticDemonLord 1.5 seconds of cannon fire, every 3 minutes does not count as suppressive fire.
@@freddarau after the first Cannon burst, you can still hear the aircraft circling around - do you know it's going to be 3 minutes?
Do you stick your head up to look?
Do you know it's just the one aircraft?
Even if it's 3 minutes, there's still the threat.
@@MajesticDemonLord but your guys will be taking cover too. gau8 isn't a lazer gun. it vibrates the plane causing a spread of bullets thus might result in friendly fire incidents
Everyone knows the Super Tucano is the best CAS, fight me.
XD and for 20% price
OV-10, with Tucano close second for sure.
Why would I fight the guy that's right?
Spookston, will you ever look through the Battletech tanks like the Scorpion or Demolisher?
I wonder what he'd think about the Alacorn.
I'd imagine he wouldn't be fond of a 95 ton tank armed only with 3 (albeit highly effective in their role) anti-tank rifles.
@@thelordofcringe Well, those are hardly rifles, now aren't they, considering each comes in at *15 tons* and terrifying amounts of damage.
@@EgorKaskader Yeah but that's my point. That's their only strength. They're not exactly useful for engaging infantry and theres much better weapons for assaulting fortified positions.
If Spookston did cover the tanks, something like the Manticore would probably appeal the best, or perhaps he'd even just focus on the 'mechs since they fulfill the MBT role at this point.
@@robertharris6092 It's more accurately described as a tank (mech?) destroyer, but it will also absolutely ruin the day of any AFV on the field, as well as fortifications, any aircraft dumb enough to let it get a solution, and landed or landing/taking off dropships, especially if it can hit the engines. It's also pretty well armored, but preponderously slow and incapable of fighting off infantry attacks.
@@robertharris6092 oh absolutely. Alacorns are the premier vehicle to bring fear of threads to mech jocks everywhere in Battletech - not least because they've got 3 1-in-7 chances to headshot a Mech and instantly kill it (unless it's using a torso-mounted cockpit), and even if that fails, still doing so much damage that they may well kill smaller AFVs (Mechs included) instantly.
As we can see in the current Ukraine-Russia war, The A10 would also be extremely vulnerable to manned anti aircraft missiles like stingers due to its low altitude and lack of stealth.
Look at its competitor, the SU-25 Frogfoot, very capable CAS plane for it's design but it's flaws are glaring the face of modern MANPAD systems.
Umm yeah no the A-10 would be fine
@@CODYoungGunna manpads are shooting cruise missile out of the air. The a10 is done
@@angellara7040 Manpads only have a 2 mile lock radius meaning that you have at most 30 second to, ready, aim and lock onto the A-10 before its out of range
@@CODYoungGunna that's a lot of time. The f 35 has about zero seconds because it's a few dozen hundred feet over its target
The A-10 should've been replaced decades ago. Combatant commanders don't ask for it, ATO's barely schedule (even in low intensity areas like Afghanistan) and Air Force higher ups consistently say the A-10 is draining valuable manpower and other resources from the rest of the Air Force.
The YOUNGEST A-10's were delivered in the mid 1980's and the Air Force has to cannibalize older airframes for the majority of spare parts. With other older airframes like the B-1, F-15, Harrier etc. at least they still receive support from Boeing, the A-10 does not.
The one aspect that the A10 has over the F35 is its ability to stay on station for longer in a given area. Because of its slower speed it can circle a tighter area and suppress the enemy quite effectively. The A-10's visual presence also adds to this supression as well. Something a high flying aircraft does not do.
That is my 2 cents anyways.
Thank you for the video!
But that only works when the best air defense is Abdul with a AK, against a country like Russia or China the A-10 will get destroyed almost instantly so it won’t be able to use those advantages.
Basically more time for the enemy to shot at you, i wouldn't say it's a good thing tbh
@@Koyomix86
That goes for any War. In order to use close air support aircraft one must have either air superiority or a minimum a suppression of aircraft in a given area.
That is why, since World War Two, we've had at least three classifications of aircraft. Attack / air superiority Fighters, interceptors, and ground-attack / close air support aircraft.
All of those aircraft support a different role within a battlefield situation.
The A-10 Warthog was not designed to be a air superiority fighter. It was designed specifically to be a ground support aircraft. It is tough and rugged by its design. The reason that it has a higher lost rate due to the F-16 is because of the nature of the missions involved.
There is no magic unicorn aircraft which does all jobs equally well. There will always be compromises.
@@arrowoforion7884 it’s a very good thing if you aren’t facing advanced air defenses systems
@@arrowoforion7884
It is the nature of the beast. If we use that logic we should get rid of infantry all together and put everybody in an IFV or an AFV and give each Soldier a sniper rifle so that they are far away from the action and safe behind armor. This line of thinking does not reflect the nature of war and combat.
Fundamentally I agree that the A-10 will need replacing, but I don't think that time is here yet. I will say you really missed out on one major advantage the A-10 has over an F-35, the ability to operate from primitive airfields. Especially in a peer conflict this is meant to reduce the reliance on airbases and carriers and allow strike groups to base from more covert positions. Because of the more complex nature of the F-35, it is not only harder to maintain, but also more costly, and less tolerant of FOD problems on a runway, and so less able to operate off of primitive runways. This also leads into the response time factor of CAS. Yes, of course the F-35 is faster, but, more often than not, especially in a peer conflict where airbases close to the main line of resistance are going to be scarce to say the least, they will have to be based further away than an A-10. The whole idea for the A-10 was deployment based off of minimal facilities, and that's where the low tech nature of an A-10 helps again. Most spares (excluding major components etc.) can be manufactured on site, and the logistics train of an A-10 is generally less intensive than an F-35. Of course that's due mainly to the sheer technical complexity of the F-35, but the problem will diminish (I expect) as time goes on and maintenance cycles are streamlined. Eventually, the A-10 will need replacing of course, but I'm not convinced the F-35 is going to be the one to do it. As for the Avenger going out of date, that's just plain wrong. 30mm is still entirely sufficient to deal with any armored target from a CAS perspective, and the 30mm is also far cheaper to build ammunition for than a Jdam for example. The 25 on the F-35 is certainly still effective against lightly armored targets, but it is simply not feasible to armor a vehicle against attack (from the angles an A-10 fires from) by such a high caliber weapon.
This got way longer than I was expecting it to... sorry 😅
Tl:Dr; The A-10 still has some advantages over a high maintenance stealth fighter like the F-35
The time was 30 years ago.
Funny thing is, helicopter-transported metal gratings are in the pipeline so that USMC F-35Bs can operate out of airfields like the Harrier did.
The problem is that 30mm wasn't even that good in the 1970s (it was tested against T-55 surrogates and most rounds couldn't penetrate), and now the depleted uranium round has been discontinued. That means that 20mm and 25mm have enough terminal effects to replace the 30mm considering those can destroy the targets the 30mm can.
This is great deconstruction of the topic. I would love to see you cover the Cheyenne attack helicopter, as that project was seemingly killed in favor of a-10 and wonder if newer fast attack helicopters may take over some roles of the a-10 in asymmetrical warfare against forces lacking in anti-air weaponry
Iirc Cheyenne died because its too complex (and overbudget?) for its time, making the prototyping progress too slow and a bit dangerous (side effect of immature technology). And with the fact that Cobra already doing its job in excellent way and economically cheaper.
If you look into it (and honestly it's a huge rabbit hole I have trouble remembering as well), the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Army and USAF essentially agreed to not step on each others' toes and the Army was free to purchase rotary wing aircraft for totally-not-CAS "fire support" missions while the USAF got the fixed wing. Now suddenly there's a huge issue because the government has to look into the Cheyenne, A-10 and also the Harrier to make sure the military isn't wasting budget on assets that overlap each other. So there's congressional hearings and finally the government decides that the three aircraft are not similar enough and all projects can go forward. The USAF kills the new A-7 variant to pay for the A-10.
Meanwhile the Cheyenne has issues that need fixing, and by the time it comes back with a vengeance the allegation is that Lyndon Johnson's ties to Bell essentially made sure that after he left the White House the project would get killed off. One missed TOW shot and it's done.
Pretty good video. I do keep getting tired if listening to the "A-10 vs F-35" contests (I mean, I even threw in my two cents once when I had no idea what I was talking about). I don't see a reason to compare, what are 2 very different aircraft. And like you said, the A-10 is really, nowadays, only good for CAS when the enemy has no or very little AA cover, and in this case, I would even say the A-10 surpasses the F-35 with a longer loiter time. However I'd also say the A-10 has one more thing over the F-35: Fear & morale. I'm pretty sure we can all agree that if you're pinned down by enemy fire, the sound of the GAU-8 and a big grey jets screaming past you, shooting the enemy makes you feel relieved and hopeful. And on the receiving end, that enemy solider would probably shit his pants at the sight, and would be terrified any time he saw the plane since. For example, during Desert Storm, the B-52 and AH-64s were absolutely feared by Iraqi soldiers due to the amount of devastation they caused. There are even reports of Iraqis and in other wars, insurgents surrendering by the mere sight of AH-64 Apaches. I don't think any plane is going to beat the A-10 in terms of that morale boost and "fear factor". Unfortunately, the A-10's day's are numbered, and although we'll all be pretty sad to see it go, its probably for the better, especially to the soldiers who need CAS to save their lives.
I would say desert storm isnt the best comparison, Iraqis would surrender to the targeting drones used by battleships, that whole war was just an exercise in creative ways for Iraqi surrender
0:06 I didn't know Spookston was british.
lmao
me as a british person i don't get what your going on about
@@jammygamer8961 He says "in it" which sounds like the "innit". As in "it's chewsday, innit?"
It's a meme now.
I'm surprised "The Reformers" haven't weaseled their way into the current admin
Cuz pierre spray is dead as far as I know
A10 fans be like:
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE We're going to have A-110s in the future, and even our spaceships will be called A-1000s and will look like A-10s XD
I'd say the A-10 is kind of like the flamethrower in WW2. Not very effective outside of very specific circumstances, but it's mainly a psychological weapon. Every part of the A-10 is amazing at envoking fear in the enemy, even if it's outdated and outclassed.
People defending A-10 be like:
Ummm bu.. bu..but the titanium bathtub!!! Brrrt brrrrt
I'd disagree about the A-10 being a decent aircraft for its time. It was shot even then. How is an aircraft meant to fly, navigate and find targets, strike them and survive in Northwestern Europe in the late 70s to mid-1980s if it has no Terrain-Following Radar, no Inertial Navigation System, no Moving Map Display, with the only useable sensor being a poor-man's FLIR in the form of the AGM-65D's seeker? (And that would only be available from 1986 onwards). CAS in Cold War era Europe was a non-starter, and airpower would have been better used interdicting Soviet forces well behind the Forward Edge of the Battle Area when they are still deployed in columns in road marches, or before they detrain when in transit via the railways.
If Stuka can fly, navigate, find targets, strike without no terrain following radar, no INS, no moving map display, then A-10 can do it too.
But if you say, that how A-10 supposed to survive concetrated Soviet air defense on frontline with potential additional electronic warfare (although relatively limited at that time) then i will say no, A-10 cannot survive.
That's why, iirc, in doctrine, A-10 always deployed after succesful SEAD missions to destroy long and medium range air defense, leaving MANPADS and AA gun to A-10.
@@swordsman1137 The problem is the Stuka couldn't do those things regularly in all weather conditions. Stuka pilot's did not have to take into account terrain following to avoid detection by radars and engagement by SAMs.
One of the problems will relying on SEAD is that you operate under the assumption that you will sufficient stocks of Anti-Radiation missiles, and that you don't mind having the supporting assets for a strike (fighter escort, chaff layers, SEAD aircraft etc) vastly outnumbering the strike aircraft actually performing the attack.
@@swordsman1137 The problem is that if you're getting shot at by enemies you cannot see, it will be impossible for you to EVER have a single second to spend on actually finding something to shoot at. If a stuka was shot at by hundreds of flak every single second and had to dodge and weave every single second, they would NEVER get a bomb off.
@@forcea1454 Sorry, seems we factoring no terrain following radar in different way. At first i thought that A-10 cannot get into battlefield without the terrain following radar because they cannot navigate the terrain where the battle is happening.
Outside of that, we basically agree that A-10 has no real survive chances in all out war in Europe at that time.
@@owo1744 that's basically what i said in second paragraph. The thing that i want to say is, excluding the air defence factor, not having terrain following radar, INS, and moving map display is not an excuse for a plane to navigate to the battlefield. But it seems, i misunderstanding the context of why those devices mentioned here.
I think the real problem is with this debate is that the F-35 can't quite do everything the A-10 can. The big thing currently, which is probably more training than anything else but could be technological as well, is that A-10 is routinely used as combat control as they have since their creation had an integrated targeting system. This allows them to act as ATC in combat zones. The other thing it can do better than the F-35 is loitering over its AO. The benefit of its turbofan engines is that they are more efficient than the ones on the F-35. For me, the problem is that the Airforce needs something properly built to replace the A-10. While being fast to target is important, sometimes one strike isn't the only one needed and you might need more later on down the line. The F-35 is a great multi-role fighter, but that is its problem is it's a multi-role fighter. It doesn't do any one thing well and it means you have to spend tons of money on training and maintaining extra skills on the pilots. No matter what the pilots will always be better at one thing or the other.
I think short term the best thing to do is update the A-10 with new high-bypass turbofans. That way it can have more power and better fuel economy. Many people don't realize that the engines on the A-10 are basically the same engines on early production 737s. This would extend its shelflife while the Airforce can look into getting an airframe that can stay on target for longer periods of time. The fact that a dedicated ground attacker can't defend itself in a modern battlescape is nothing new. The A-10 was never envisioned as going deep into enemy territory undefended. It was always created to be used in areas where air superiority/supremecy has been achieved. Either way, I can see the F-35 still augmenting this hypothetical aircraft much as the F-16/F-18's did in the past for the A-10. I don't think we need 100's of them but I think it would be a good idea to keep a fair amount of specialed airframe and pilots. lest you run into the problem that the Marine Corp will probably will with removing all their Tank and Heavy Artillery units. There might come a time when they need them again then you have to build that back up from the ground up. Though admittedly it might not be as bad for the airforce it's still something to consider.
Engines aren't from the 737, but regional airliners. The most famous example is the CRJ-200, which uses a variant of the same engine as the A-10!
@@9999AWC that is my bad. Too many engines have too similar a name. I was getting it mixed up with the Cfm56. I should have made it clearer that ge tuned it into a commercial engine but I was more trying to make a point of why the A 10 is a bit more fuel efficient
I don’t see the F-35 replacing the A-10. The F-16 and F-15E are much more capable in that role as CAS.
Or the Bronco and the super Tucano, far cheapet to procure and operate when it comes to coin.
@@robertharris6092 yes, but the A-10 and F-35 have different missions. The F-35 isn’t really a CAS fighter, more of a strike fighter
a-10 is a bit like an aerial kv-2. A big vehicle that has a lot of dedicated followers because it has a large gun, even though it is really overrated when you actually look at it nowadays.
@@robertharris6092 yeah, but it also had a lot of drive problems, it broke down fairly often, it had stability issues and was even slower than the Kv-1. While the ISU-152 bunker buster had a better gun but didn't have so many stability/speed/drive issues, so it performed better.
@@robertharris6092 But some broke down more than others. For example, Kv-1 breaks down less than kv-2 because it's lighter. Sure, it does not need to be fast, but it at least should not break down on the way to the target.
My response to those who want to keep the A-10 in service forever: "What do you think an MQ-9 can be used for?"
Drones are pretty great at getting captured by Iran.
There's your answer.
@@lector-dogmatixsicarii1537That is an issue, but ask yourself: Is that a problem with the drones or with the sheer volume of them being flown over Iran?
@@robertharris6092 you mean like when a F-15E shot down a helicopter with a LGB?
The A-10 never stood out in CAS capability
Anyone who's also tired about the Reformer's BS should look up Lazer Pig. He's also got a lot to say about the Reformers.
My father who served in iraq said that the a10 is more about moral than actually destroying targets. He loved the fact that his boys had someone in the skies "watching their back" .He knew that the a10 wasnt as powerful but it was good at what it truely did.
Turboprops will be the future of COIN
Hell, even when the A-10 originally entered service the gun was known to be ineffective in its intended role. They found that during exercises, A-10 pilots who tried to rely on the gun got whacked out of the sky without achieving much while the pilots who relied on the Mavericks had far greater success. Not to mention that during the Cold War, it was estimated that if things went hot, the A-10 fleet would have been inoperable within two weeks (though by that point the nukes probably would have been flying anyways).
Naturally the A-10 will go the way of the Mustang, the Spitfire and the Tomcat, it's just sad to see one of the last living legends of modern aviation fade and become just another legend.
The thing is, the A10 was not intended to be a CAS aircraft in the first place but a loitering tank hunter. It just ended up being a dedicated CAS aircraft afterward due to how much firepower can be loaded onto it, and we didn't have a dedicated CAS aircraft for general ground support. Even back in its day, its operational life expectancy should the third world war break out in Europe was expected to be no more than a week due to attrition.
a loitering aircraft is quickly a dead aircraft. also a week is pretty optimistic, a coupple of sorties, max.
@@cmdrantezscar3368 It was optimistic and the brass expected all A10s to be either combat ineffective or annihilated in half the time should war have broken out in the 80s.
The only other aircraft I know of that was designed to be a general CAS aircraft from the get-go would be the SU-25 and it is a boom and zoomer.
God damnit spookston I love the a10 to death and always will, you bring up alot of good points and I agree with you that it's inevitable the f35 will replace it. I'm glad I was in service and saw them in person flying about. I dont know if you mentioned it or not in your video but the operational cost of the a10 is a fraction of the f35 which is another factor in why we've used it for almost 50 years
You have to factor in the millions of dollars spent yearly to keep the old A-10 airframes from falling out of the sky
@@talltale9760 still cheaper than producing new f35
@asdrubale bisanzio I understand that but I'm just comparing the a10 to the f35, I even agree that the a10 has run its course
@@mimicnutria18 certainly not lmao they’re getting excessively expensive to maintain
@@talltale9760 it cost 1.4 billion for the entire lifetime of the a 10 the f35 is 1.7 trillion id say that's a big gap
Im so glad I grew up with this: *A-10*
But man I love this: *F-35*
From what i Gathered it seems that the a10 is only effective when there is complete air superiority or lack of aa and the f35 is effective with or without air superiority and aa
May be a late comment but at this point the A-10 is more of a morale booster in this day and age
The fact that the F-35 actually has a heavier payload than the A-10 was actually pretty surprising to me. That's the one thing that convinced me that, yes, the A-10 is on the way out. Of course, that Skyraider wannabe the A-29 looks like a really neat piece of kit for Counter-Insurgency.
As well, with Fairchild-Republic long gone, no new A-10's will ever be made and eventually the airframes in service simply won't be able to withstand the stress of flying and firing their guns anymore, so retirement will be the only option
They've already hit their old age on the airframes, the US has spent $8 billion dollars in the last 10 years to keep those things in the air, that's a 140 F-35s, the A-10 is now the second biggest money hog in the entire military only behind that of the B-2 bomber.
A-10 is great at being a target and killing allies
LazerPig did exelent job at explaining both A-10 and F-35
Yep
F35>A10 cry about it
One issue I haven't seen addressed is how in a peer-level conflict the vast majority of the multirole fighters and their munitions will likely be tied up doing missions other than CAS.
I know a guy who is a FERVENT CRITIC of the F-35. Dude’s written a essay on why the thing is a over-hyped money furnace. The thing has been through what he describes as development hell since the time he was a kid, and he’s been following it almost ever since then. On top of him also having served in the armed forces, I think I can see why he’s so passionately against the thing.
I think I understand both sides of the argument here...fudged stats and contextual performance values can mess up perceptions overall. But neither of these aircraft are perfect. From what I’ve been told, the F-35 is a mess that can’t seem to get its act together, and now that the A-10 isn’t as god-like as we’ve all made it out to be... Seeing as I’m mostly only interested in how they look, sound, and how cool they would be if they turned into giant robots, I don’t really have the authority or right to throw my hat into this ring.
I guess what I wanna know is this: What exactly it that would make the perfect CAS Aircraft? What theoretical Aircraft could put either of these to shame? Because, I’m not too knowledgeable about these things and that d like to know.
For COIN CAS (COIN stands for COunter-INsurgency, bascially dropping bombs on guerillas or terrorists without a proper military or AAA) something cheap and reliable, the A10 is, IMO, not cheap enough, its an old plane and spare parts arent made anymore, which means something like a prop plane would be better. For near-peer CAS (near-pear countries are countries with large militaries that can rival the US technologically) the f35 is basically the best lol.
same conversations in ww2. germany stopped production of stuka and hs 123 replacing them with 190 types, only for the army to insist on them staying in production given their (well diserved) reputations despite them being well out of date and a 190 still able to deliver 500kg worth of boom and being far more suited to the strategic situation by 1943.
Measured, well thought out and well-argued. Exactly what I've come to expect.
Ahh the A-10. The terror of the British tank force
Considering most modern conflicts the US has been in are counter insurgencies in destabilized states there prolly isn't much of a need for the more expensive tech yet
Yeah so no, for reasons.
The issue is that this is "fighting the last war" mentality. It's the Department of Defense, not Department of Forever Wars. The tools should be focused on defending the nation and this means being able to take out anyone who wants to bully you. If we reached the conclusion the bully doesn't exist and we only need to fight the little guys, at that point just disband the military. That's not real life.
I often tell people to enjoy the A-10 while it’s still here, because it’s not likely to be around for much longer, and there’s not likely to be another like it. It’s story is a sad one, having started the race already behind when it came out, and struggling to catch up ever since. But what’s even more sad is, the man who designed this plane has gotten next to no credit. A man named Pierre Sprey stole credit for the A-10. In reality, it was a man named Andrew Cartioveli(hope I spelled that right) who had designed the plane. The “Blitzwing fighter” Pierre claims he designed as the A-10 predecessor, was actually made by a deceased friend of his, named Burton. The same Burton who threw a fit over the M2 Bradley because his ideas were being shot down. And it was designed as a bare bones replacement for the A-10. Sprey never even worked in the aerospace industry, but he claims credit for the A-10. Even Wikipedia have cited him has the designer. So what we have is a sad plane, struggling to keep in the fight, while some self important fart claims ownership of it. The story of the A-10 is a rather sad one.
Some helpful updates:
1. Alexander Kartveli, you're welcome
2. Wikipedia mods finally removed Sprey's supposed contributions from the A-10 page, thank goodness.
3. Sprey died last year, thus the only people regurgitating his bullshit are his die-hard Reformer fans. Still unfortunate for his family though.
@@kingsnakke6888 Thank you for the name correction. Couldn’t remember it off the top of my head. Sadly though, I’ve heard Sprey had been removed from the Wikipedia page multiple times, but they seem to keep putting him back on it. One man even made a comment chain about it on the video I watched, and every edit was “he’s been taken off, now he’s been put back on again”. It seems like “The Reformers”, as they call themselves, are playing a game of tug of war for the A-10’s PR. On a funnier note, that comment chain I mentioned is on a video critiquing the A-10 and berating The Reformers for stealing credit of it, and Sprey literally died the day it was posted. The man got murdered by words so badly, he died from it. Absolutely hilarious. I think the guy making the video was called LazerPig, pretty good stuff.
@@Nikolai_The_Crazed Correct. Also, good news. The Wikipedia mods finally realized just how bs Pierre's involvement on the A-10 was so they actually _purged_ any reference to him on the A-10 page.
A victory for all except for those clinging to nostalgic ideas of warfare.
Let’s be honest the OV10 Bronco is the way to go when it comes to cas
One of the primary benefits of the F-35 that was not mentioned here is the sensor suite. There is only one screen on the F-35 (can be customized how the pilot likes) and all sensors feed into that combined battlefield map. From the AESA radar to the EOTS (ie next-gen Sniper pod/ IRST combo), to the ESM (radar warning, signals processor, etc), and to the unique EODAS (6 IIR cameras that see in 360), these combined sensors allow the F-35 to automatically gather, process, and share what it can detect with all other F-35s in the area. Those F-35s can even share that info with others if a proper receiver is installed in that off-board host.
Think of your in-game map that tracks your teammates and automatically gets updated with what your teammates detect and that is what it's like in the F-35. The flight leader can even set target assignments for other jets on the battlefield using his screen and the other pilots get those updates in real-time. Lastly, those real-time comms are using directional & encoded datalinks so that it's almost impossible to intercepts let alone jam those links.
A-10 cope cult in the comments is hilarious.
I thought this was Dalek’s video for a moment lol.
Best part is, he's back! Yeah hubby!!!!1!1!!!
Easy fix to this issue. Just give every single A-10 in the USAF inventory to the US Army. Let the people who wants them around operate them, that way the US Army gets their "close" air support and the USAF can do actual CAS with standoff weapons. Win-win.