Is there a law saying the Army can't operate a balloon corps? Zeppelins armed with Avenger guns, 105mm howitzers, and Hellfires?
Niet comrade! We would want these!
http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Kirov_airship_(Red_Alert_3)
For Glorious Mother Великобритания! (Velikobritaniya = Great Britain.)
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Wow reviving the Balloon Corps that would be an act of desperation. So many problems with trying to use balloons it isn't even funny.
We could just skip the insanity, exercise common sense, and actually listen to the Ground Pounders and Zipper Suited Sun God's who say the A-10 is great and not kill it. If they need something new the pilots have had ideas on what to do to make the hog better. Shared the article a couple times and others have shared it as well. It boiled down to keeping most of it's capabilities with upgrades but giving it better engines and fuel capacity and/or range.
Who watches the watchmen?
Like I said, giving it the engines from the F-35 might be a start if we want to start salvaging.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
I dunno, I still kinda want Kirovs. They had such awesome faces.
Oh really when?
The A-10 doesn't set itself on fire. The F-35 engine would be a downgrade and a pilot safety hazard.
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Which F-35 engine there are like three different ones. I wouldn't touch the USMC F-35 engine with a 50 foot pole.
Who watches the watchmen?
let's fit an A-10 with the F-35's lift fans. Verti-Hog!
Nemesis
Don't scare me like that.
A brighter future for a darker age.
V
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
PS: It's not like the Harrier is an easy aircraft to fly...
I was thinking somewhere along the lines of a non-afterburning version of the F135-PW-400.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Just fit F119/120s on. Maybe extend the fuselage a bit.
The F119 is functionally the same engine as the F135, just with less thrust.
In theory, more thrust = more payload capacity. But I'm probably wrong there.
edited 31st Mar '15 10:02:06 AM by Deadbeatloser22
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Honestly, I think the A-10 is overrated and is built around a weapon that was Cool, but Inefficient when it was new. 30mm rounds aren't actually much good against tanks and carrying ATGMs can be done pretty well by less specialized planes (and helicopters), while shooting up terrorists and loitering can be done just as well or better by prop planes with .50 cals or 20mm autocannons and a few hellfires.
It's not that the A-10 is bad, it's just that its most famous weapon is built around a task that never actually existed because airplane bullets have never been a major tank killer.
That said, I don't think the F-35B is the plane to do any of it because it just sacrifices too much for that lift fan. If the A and C were the only models, we'd probably be a lot closer to having an actual, deliverable product. The A and C will probably eventually work out like the F-4 or F-16 for a new generation of fighters - maybe not the best thing, but good enough.
Most helicopters and prop planes you could mention would survive how many hits from MANPAD or heavy caliber autocannons? None on the first and damned few on the second would be my best guess. Look at what a Warthog can survive and say it's over rated. I mean, really.
I've said it before and I will say it again - if the Americans really don't want the best CAS airplane in the world, bar none, then they should just give them to the British Army's Army Air Corps.
Is that really going to happen with the defence budget being slashed to the bone again?
"Yup. That tasted purple."
HGW XX/7
Independent Scottish Defence Force with a fuckton of missile boats FTW! 
Night Clerk of the Apacalypse.
Balmung: Actually in terms of effectiveness the Gau-8 is not only rather accurate it is notably effective. It can take out tanks the catch is the A-10's are not doing this head on. Calling what the A-10 shoots bullets is like calling a JDAM nothing more then a 1000lb iron bomb. The rounds carry a lot of velocity and the DU rounds have a lot of impact force. The gun has repeatedly proven to be effective against a wide variety of targets from an assortment of armored vehicles, bunkers, infantry, and yes even tanks.
As for helicopters vs airplanes. Aircraft are usually faster, have higher ceilings, heavier payloads, sturdier, can carry more varied payloads, and most are longer ranged than their helicopter counter parts. The only thing the A-10 has an issue with is range and that is closely tied to its issues with its engines. Aircraft like the A-10 can carry fuel pods, bomb type munitions and heavier longer ranged missiles like Mavericks. Helicopters are rather limited in the same armaments and range extending access to fuel pods.
edited 31st Mar '15 5:30:47 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?
It's not that the A-10 is bad, it's just that its most famous weapon is built around a task that never actually existed because airplane bullets have never been a major tank killer.
Newsflash, the GAU-8 was never intended to be used as their primary anti-tank weapon. (AGM-65 Mavericks were!)
Secondly the plane was built as a Spiritual Successor to the A-1 Skyraider. A prop plane that had infamous loiter time, immense ammo capacity and it survived ground fire that other aircraft would not or could not.
Thirdly helicopters and drones have a number of problems. First capacity. An A-10 can carry enough SDB's and/or other ordnance on top of 1100 rounds for the 30mm to more than outclass an Apache in ground attack. Second issue is Anti-Air. An AH-64E Apache used by the US Army is resistant to .50 cal and 14.5mm with some spots rated 23mm resistant but combat experience proves otherwise. Meaning it won't be super quick but heavy machine guns like a Browning M2 or KPV can bring an Apache down. An A-10 can shrug off 23mm quite effectively such to the point it forced the Russians in the Cold War to make an entirely new generation of Anti-Air in the Tunguska-M1. 23mm can bring an A-10 down but good luck doing that with a single ZU-23-2 emplacement and 50 rounds per belt per gun. (100 rounds total before reload.) An Apache absolutely cannot survive a direct hit by an SA-16 Igla or FIM-92A/D Stinger MANPADS. It'll come crashing to the ground in a hell of a hard landing at best, blown to bits at worst. An A-10 can if it's lucky and/or hit just the right way. Plus the higher airspeed of the A-10 means it's in the AA envelope both gun and missile for far less time than an Apache or Cobra. (Plus SEAD is an official mission profile of the A-10.)
Also A-10 can reach places helicopters cannot or have difficulty with such as high mountains.
It doesn't help that this thread has basically fetishised the A-10 to the same degree that other sites have with the F-35.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
HGW XX/7
I salute Balmung for saying everything I wanted to say but couldn't be arsed with the arguments.
Schild und Schwert der Partei
^^ Because the F-35 has no gun!
Wasn't that just the B model? I thought the A and C had a gun, unlike the boondoggle of a middle child of the F-35 family.
Grr. I want those for the Army Air Corps. The boys in Light Blue really don't like the idea of getting their Euro Pigeons swatted doing low-level CAS, and at times that's the only way to do things properly.