• crimsonpoodle@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Well it all depends on what you’re doing. The A-10s can carry more ordinance, longer loiter times, more heavily armored than something like the f35.once you establish air superiority you need trucks to dump munitions as fast and cheaply as possible.

    • azuth@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 hours ago

      That’s not the F-35’s role, that’s the F-16’s role for the USAF (and most western air forces) and carries as much ordinance, has better range since it’s not hampered by armor.

      It also actually has performed low-level attacks against AAA, something the A-10 was banned from doing in Desert Storm, despite having armor for that specific task.

      Which is the issue, the A-10’s core concept is flawed. Armor does not provide suitability to aircraft, not even against AAA, never mind SAMs. Compromising performance (speed, range), forgoing capabilities (A2A radar) makes the plane practically useless.

      • ZombieChicken@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        43 minutes ago

        You seem to forget that the A-10 is only about 50 years old. The armor, redundant controls, and flight capabilities (such as being designed to fly while missing half a wing, half the entire tail, and an engine) are there to keep the pilot safe. They have landed after being hit more than once, and entirely due to it’s design.

        The A-10 isn’t an air superiority fighter; it’s an attack craft and does that job well enough than any grunt on the ground is disappointed when a request for air support is answered by anything BUT an A-10.

        It needs an update, sure, but it is far from useless.