Looks more like a puma

Wurr't hawwwg! 😆

@@Maynarkh Shut it Grif.

I do hope not..

Lmfao right? Total crazy people 🤭

Your right! It's not 1975 anymore where everyone used Binos and rudimentary INS and white phosphorus smoke rockets for strikes! :D Its 2024 and modern TGPs, IFF and combined arms are the standard 😎🥳

Exactly. The memes and jokes only serve to waste more money. This thing should have been scrapped before Iraq

Sure is cool though. Alas you’re 100% right

Has nothing to do with the airframe itself. By your same logic, the fa18 should be known as a lawndart for slamming into mountains and cratering fields

@@casematecardinal The F-16 early on did in fact have the nickname lawn dart

And then in a testing engagement, A-10 couldnt destroy a single target

@@gansior4744the gun isn’t really optimal for tanks anyway, it’s best against lighter vehicles like IFVs, APCs and logistics/support vehicles. Don’t forget it also has a bunch of pylons for suspended weapons which are a lot better at killing tanks

@@filipstraka8964 while you're correct to my best of knowledge i think that issue is that people market A10 as a tank killer. And almost any other aircraft can carry bombs and missles to kill tanks as well.

That, but also lack of targeting such systems before prioritizing other targets :P

@@mamarussellthepie3995 it's more that those systems are harder to isolate and target because they don't put out tons of EM noise that you can hone in on.

Which is why the Su-25s are the only ones able to operate in Ukraine. Since neither side is able to do SEAD or DEAD. If Russia didn't suck we would have seen the much more activity of it's multi-role aircraft. Obtaining air supremacy is vital to an effective campaign, since without it you are just completely blocked from using your most destructive assets. Imagine the damage the russian missile barrages could inflict onto ukraine if it didn't have air defenses. How much easier it would be to clear defensive installations and destroy logistics. A countries air power should be measured on how quickly and effectivly it can do SEAD and DEAD operations to claim and maintain air supremacy. And the US is the only one that seems currently able to do so considering the F-35 and all the various weapon systems that come with it.

@@einehrenmann6156 Your not wrong. As far As I'm aware, the U.S. is the only nation to invest heavily in anti radiation missiles and deploy them in mass. Multi roll aircraft on both sides are also handicapped by low availability of smart munitions.

@@einehrenmann6156 this is the theory but it has never been tested in a fight against a peer power, so we don't REALLY know if it will work as advertised. For example all the precise high-tech weapons were supposed to be a panacea against Russia's huge numbers of troops. Unfortunately, it turns out Russia is very skilled at jamming GPS-guided missiles and their effectiveness has turned out to be MUCH worse whenever ECM is present. Laser guided munitions are much more precise, but are naturally limited by the weather. My point being, in a sterile, theoretical paradigm things work as planned. In reality, it often turns out that high-tech gadgets give us less bang for the buck than we think.

"vulnerable the A-10 would have been to Soviet SHORAD, The Tunguska system in particular comes to mind." Indeed, it would have been vulnerable much as SU-25's are vulnerable to MANPAD's, and the exact same AA as you mentioned being used in Ukraine. However, the reality on the ground is often shown different from what we expect on paper, in this same notion all gunships are equally vulnerable and thus ineffective too with this equation. Not every part of the frontline would be the same and not all would be so clear, so I would consider myself half agreeing with you, but based on whether or not a hypothetical turned out in the Soviets or NATO's favour, in which neither of us could know. "In addition to this, when we look at its actual combat performance, we can clearly see that the "rugged simplicity" trope holds no real weight in actual combat" I agree, that's why I mentioned the nuance of the style of combat the A-10 saw being highly uncontested airspace, except for the early stages of Iraq. I agree again, it is not the most precise, it was less effective than other platforms, but outside of fighting third rate militaries in the middle east and terror groups, that combat performance is contextually different from a conventional war with a near peer. This is why I clarified that it was a failure - in practice. The A-10 using binoculars is in fact a very flaw I mention in the video. "More sophisticated types such as the F-111 and F-15E saw much greater results in the Gulf War, demonstrating the effectiveness of PGMs for CAS." I also concede this in the video, the F-111 and F-15 were far more suited to the conditions of the Gulf War. "All of these things are why the F-35 is intended to take over the CAS role from the A-10" The F-35 is not the replacement for the A-10, but the replacement for the F-16, F-18 and Harrier. This is more believed to be the Sky Warden, which while a brilliant asset is actually more of a replacement to the U-28A Draco but I digress. That said, as mentioned in the video, the F-35 can perform CAS, that does not make it a dedicated CAS platform such as the A-10, and is more of a multi-role fighter. Thank you for your productive contribution to this discussion, however I am assuming this was typed prior to viewing the entire video? - simply because there are multiple points that I actually concede as flaws with the A-10, and completely agree with you on, with the few disagreements already being elaborated on in the video. Thanks again.

The ATGM sam threat of today has largely been balanced by new RWR, LWS, long range targeting pods, dedicated sead/dead aircraft missions that came to fruition in the 70s timeframe of the og A10s, satelite and other data gathering for equipment movement, and now drones :) An A10C with mavericks and a long range targeting pod cruising about would have as much of a shot at killing a Pantsir as the Pantsir would have against the A10. Now that's parody 😅 Oh and so far the usaf isnt training F35 guys on cas. Just taking cas guys and putting them in F35s.

Man, such a based comment. A-10 getting hit and coming back to the base is literally a Definition of Survivor Bias. While its claimed to be a flying tank, taking massive damage and being able to fly, this argument somehow forgets massive losses and all the instances were the plane didnt come back

@KabodaOfficial Yes, admittedly I did type this comment about halfway through the video, that was shortsighted of me, I apologize.

​​@@mamarussellthepie3995 I'm aware that the F-35 is a multirole fighter that is more of a direct replacement for the F-16 (F-35A), however as I understand it, it is intended to replace the A-10 by default as the plan is to streamline the USAF tacair fleet to a fewer number of types and eliminate the dedicated CAS type, having the multirole F-35 fulfill that mission set instead of a dedicated CAS aircraft like the A-10.

Flying below radar is ideally employed to avoid things like low set radar sites, AAAs, Sam truck/ifvs and infantry who cant see over the horizon 😊

@@mamarussellthepie3995 Radar can see over the horizon. It can also see things that are on the ground. You don't fly 'below' radar. That's not how it works. It's not a thing.

​​@@TowboatinThe thing you are talking about is what's referred to as a *Target* that gets *Shot At* by weasels, or clapped by arty, or bopped by drones now, weather it be Russian, Chinese, or American :P lol. Maybe try again =D

@@mamarussellthepie3995 Okay, none of that actually refutes anything I said. What you described is not evasion, it's suppression. Make up your mind.

​@@mamarussellthepie3995your entire answer didnt made sense, and he is right

But that's the smart thing to do. Why would anybody do that?

​@@patrickfrost9405How is that smart? The only reason the B-52 is still in service is that developing something new to fulfill its role would be more expensive tjan upgrading it. But for the A-10's role, better replacements already exist, which don't put the pilot and friendly troops at risk.

@@daseinzigwahrem cameras will never beat human sights, sure missiles might be better, bullets against relative soft target is still more cost-effective... The on-site AO situation awareness is still the best... but can the F16, F18, F35, F22 remain on station like the Hog? And with abundance of Care Package?

@@PrograError "cameras will never beat human sights" what is this nonsense. The human eye cannot see infrared. The human eye unfortunately could not differentiate between trucks with rocket launchers and friendly British tanks.

@@Maynarkh sure there's more capabilities with cameras, but is it more powerful than the "sensors" of a human eye... And of course the deduction capability of the mind with the information given. With how delusional current AI is, there's near 0 chance of it being as good or better than a human just like how GPU is not any better in representing reality visually in a budget without needing workstation or server class GPUs.

Thank you! :)

What even is this comment? First you claim that the A-10 is "flown by grunts for grunts". That is simply wrong. Then you quote an article in which the US Army, which doesn't know anything about Air Force operations, tries to make a point for the A-10. Okay, cool that JTACs want the A-10 to do CAS. Understandable, since it needs to fly so low that the GIs can actually see it, in contrast to a Strike Eagle dropping JDAMs from low earth orbit. But that doesn't help if it then gets shot down by a 1970s shoulder-launched missile.

Low and slow flying Aircraft in a congested area full of SAMs and AA guns doesnt seem like a good idea

(Watch the video)

@@KabodaOfficial yea, i will. Already added it to my watch later list.

Nice!

Pretty sure most Combat craft can land, can Taxi and can take out targets

@@gansior4744 Hah. Not likely. The A-10 has reinforced undercarriage. It can land in a field and do that. It’s rough field certified, can land and take off where others can’t.

Same can be said of the F-111/A-10 debate.

Thankfully A10Cs run full IFF suites that visually project friendlies onto pilot's helmet visors 😁

Nah, Lazerpig isn't that childish.

@@highjumpstudios2384 *insert fry narrowing his eyes meme here*

@@highjumpstudios2384 LMAO this is hilarious. He is that childish; to the extent where The Chieftain had to make a video telling him to calm down and he replied with a drunk rambling, promptly deleted it, and took a ‘break’ Dudes a clown

@@Ben-ek1fz I kinda see what you're saying but nothing forced the chieftain to make a video about the sla-16 engine and its subsequent use or non use in the T-14. In either case. Does recognizing that you made a fool of yourself and apologizing not speak more to his character? At the end of the day is is just a dude. And the stealth video is really good.

@@highjumpstudios2384 >says ‘He isn’t that childish’ >proceeds to explain how he is that childish and he’s ‘just a dude’ ‘Uh no actually harassing other people and making false accusations because you got corrected on a couple of your videos is just something everyone does ANDD have you seen his new video it’s rlly rlly good’ Nothing you said disproves my initial reply. Laserpig is indeed that childish and immature. Therefore your reply comment is incorrect

What upgrades? The A-10 at this point is more 4th gen fighter on the inside than the original A-10. There's not a lot of room to work with, and no upgrade can address the actual flaws.

@@ChucksSEADnDEAD I have no ideas. I have no knowledge of a/c systems. My apologies.

@@donpfoutz625 No worries, man. We aren't born with all the knowledge.

Ideally you can actually maintain those fancy technologies, but that just means having a few technicians for such equipment out in the field! Almost like having to maintain the modern systems of an F35 or F15 or F16 or F18 or modern Helicopter or Abrams, etc. . . You need the parts? Gotta get them there just like getting new motors :) Lul, people pull modern wystems like its like a game of tug of war. Either its Too advanced and thus can't be used religiously, or its not advanced enough and cant do the job! Ironically the A10 is both *Rugged & Advanced* 😘

@@mamarussellthepie3995 "Ideally." Stop right there. The A-10 was built to fight in an environment that was far from ideal. That was the whole point of it. Ironically, the environment it wound up fighting in is precisely the ideal environment, which is why it enjoys the reputation it has.

​@Towboatin ironically, even in either environment, it gained the positive reputation it has now, weather old versions with ww2 gauges, or modern ones with MFDs and precision munitions 😂

@@mamarussellthepie3995 The A-10 was designed to blow up T-55s and T-64s in the Fulda Gap while being shot to pieces and it was hoped that it would kill enough tanks that the ground forces could handle whatever was left when the A-10s were all scrap metal. This is what was expected. This is what it was designed to do. If it had been flying and fighting in the sort of environment it was expected to operate in when it was designed, it would have been shot down at rates comparable to the F-105 Thunderchief, or worse. F-105 is the only platform in Air Force history that has been pulled from service because of losses. And it was a very good aircraft, beloved by its pilots and the grunts on the ground, just like the A-10. Despite that, the public remembers it (when it's remembered at all) as the jet that got shot down a lot and had a lot of its pilots become POWs.

@Towboatin Yeah, while fighting soviet hoards, you could realistically expect the 11-1200 rounds carried to be chewing through the rear spectrum of T54/55s, T62s, T72s, and then T80s later on while most likely getting kills here and there where a round slips in and cooks off ammo scattered throughout those tanks like a hoarder house! Aside from that, you'd see a lot of F4s and such wild weaseling AA constantly, effectively nullifying that threat unless they want to be a smoldering pile of scrap. A10s would be repetitively hosing down mainly, not the tanks themselves, as they'd be engaged by Cobras, Corsairs, Apaches, F4s, F111s, Tanks, Recoilless rifle teams, Tow teams, Artillery, A10s with mavericks, etc, but rather, the super squishy ural trucks, Bmp1s, Bmp2s, BMDs, and other light AFVs meant to tank 50cals and 20/25mms and not an AP barrage, Cluster bomb strike, Rocket spam, or conventional bomb strike from an A10 flock or other cas platforms. Duh Oh, and if they're not obligated to that, they're also behind enemy lines flying tree top level baking artillery, airfields, cargo or troop convoys, trains, etc, while splooging almost 900 flares in and out. That's generally the mission A10s adopted during gap tensions of the 70s and 80s. Half way through that, precision strike became a mainstay and A10s regained their main mission of brrrrrrrting clusters of infantry with HE while still rocking Mavericks to plink AFVs as seen in GW1 and the last 20 years of forever wars. Remember, though, the A10 was derived from the 1960's era A-X program which itself evolved not just from interservice politics, but early war VTOL tilt rotor programs and requirements to replace attackers that were too outdated or could not stay on station for long enough with enough munitions. Examples would be the low T-W, not very survivable single engine, single tail, barely armored A1, even though it had a lot of gas and ammo. So, on that front, it fills the sandy role. It replaced the A37 by matching its speed range, low profile from frontal attacks, accuracy while also being a twin engine plqne that was easy to fly while also having high rpm cas guns (Gau8+20mm gun pods) and while having a larger munition load. It filled the role of the AH56 with Mavericks, early conception to employ hellfires in the 70s, large rocket and bomb loads comparatively, good visibility and endurance in loiter time, and vertical maneuverability cuz plane. TLDR it was THE cas aircraft while helicopters caught up in long-range missile capabilities that equel the A10's maverick capability. All of that makes it better in every way *sandy* style aircraft, just like the A1, and just like it's meant to be. This role is literally exactly what was required for conflicts like Vietnam, exactly what was required to disrupt logistics and troop congregations in Europe, exactly what was needed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably exactly what we'll need and want in future conflicts that neither you or I can envision until we're in the shit. Just like Vietnam. Also, dude, literally what kind of fuggn attrition would you expecr from *WORLD WAR THREE AND A WALL OF SOVIET ARMOR, AA, TROOPS, ARTY, AND NUKES* going down in Europe XD that's basically like THE suicidal environment of all environments of all time so far, and even other fighters and attackers would face similar or worse attrition within minutes to months. . . LoL the infantry life expectancy was at some point like 30ish minutes, iirc, so I wouldn't expect any worse for any aorcraft type, especially when the entire continent would instantly become a clusterfuck on every front.

Hovering small craft that can pin-point drop munitions is a far more effective solution than a innacurate cannon unable to provide enough critical hits. Maybe it would be good against trucks

@@gansior4744 I thought it was obvious and completely understood that drones are superior requiring much less resources (humans) in addition are more precise. I did not think I'd need to point those things out. Thankfully you pointed those things out.

@@gansior4744 I thought it was obvious and completely understood that drones are superior requiring much less resources (humans) in addition are more precise. I did not think I'd need to point those things out. Thankfully you pointed those things out.

there are things that can do that job... its called helicopters or drones...

​@@vitsobotka6268Or A10s 😚

Helicopters are far better suited to that task. As are the guns on USN vessels.

@@NuclearFantasies its speed, a helicopter maxes around 200 mph while this can do 400 ish. When the new tilt rotor comes, that will change the calculus

@@NuclearFantasies Naval A10 would still use the same if not similar weaponry while having 2.5x the speed and similar loiter time 🥰

This approach of "technology bad because look at [insert war here]" severely misrepresents American history. Technology isn't bad, but it needs to be done right. Vietnam is not an example for technology failing, but for being thrown into an unexpected environment without adaptation. Every piece of equipment used in Vietnam was designed for the European theater or homeland defense in an all-out war, not for fighting a guerilla campaign in a swampy jungle country. If hi-tech is done right, it can win wars. Just look at Iraq 1991. The F-15, with all its expensive equipment, is the world's highest-scoring fighter for a reason.

@@daseinzigwahrem - Technology is good but it has to follow the scientific method in order to end up that way. By that I mean the technology has to be based upon experience and subject to falsification. - This "high tech airforce vs low tech luddite" meme is a false choice. And even if it weren't the USAF's approach is not "pro-technology". - The decision to remove self-sealing fuel tanks, 360 field of view bubble canopies, redundant flight controls, and armor of sensitive components (like the pilot) represented a technological step backwards. These were technologies paid for in blood that were dropped on a whim. -The USAFs resisted the ICBM when it was invented. They fought tooth and nail and even blocked its development because "it would divert funds from aircraft development" (see the book "All the Missiles Work" pg 20). - They were just as skeptical about air launched cruise missiles, and electronic warfare. I listened to a Colonel at Red flag state the Mig-21 Bison is practically invisible to previous generation radars with it's advanced jammer. The Israeli air force penetrated modern Russian air defenses in Operation Orchard with their F-16I using possibly the Suter advanced EW system. - Jammers, and cruise missiles have taken a backseat to the use of stealth aircraft to physically penetrate into enemy defenses, even though stealth aircraft weapon bays can't hold the large air launched cruise missiles that every other plane can (including the A-10). Seriously. Do you really need to fly into the teeth of air defenses when missiles already do it? Just shoot from a distance. - You're equivocating on the word "Failure". The failed design philosophy and rationale for a weapon is included, not just the application. History is full of examples of ill-conceived weapons (see the German Wunderwaffe). - Aircraft in Vietnam weren't misused the military simply forgot what a CAS environment looked like. The F-104 starfighter was expected to be used for close air support. There's videos of it doing so in tests and made (attempts) to in Vietman. The bomber mafia literally misunderstood CAS that much (although it obviously wasn't a priority and was considered a trivial mission). - One pilot in the book "On Yankee Station" laments how predictable the losses to ground fire were after experiences in Korea and Cuba, which amounted to 80% of all losses to enemy fired (SAM sites next followed by a microscopic number of MiG losses. Being scientific: what does that tell you?). I've read numerous books about the A-1 Skyraider and the written statements by ground forces and FACs make it clear what type of aircraft is and is not valid for the CAS mission: The infantryman's opinions have not changed in 60 years. I can provide quotations on demand. - The struggles of aircraft in Vietnam were almost identical to the ones encountered in the Korean war. A European conflict would have been worse: Russia had a significant number of aircraft and even more AAA. - As far as the F-15 goes it was built in response to the multi-mission FX. This became the F-111 Ardvark which was was their first choice. This plane had a top speed of Mach 2.7, weighed 60,000 pounds, and had a thrust ro weight ratio of 0.7. You can hear Boyd giving a lecture on KZfaq on how he basically had to trick the military into making the F-15 with its 1.4 thrust to weight ratio. So even a flawed aircraft built from a good design philosophy can have excellent results. - I'll caveat with the fact that most kills by the F-15 were against frankly lousy Arab pilots. The Israeli air force was stated that if the aircraft had been switched they still would have won with similarly low losses. - And even more so, the US kills were of fleeing Iraqi aircraft or blasted a few seconds after taking off from the runway with no ground radar control intercept to guide them. The whole world vs Iraq isn't really a fair fight lol.

I’ll gladly try and clear these up. The first one, I didn’t claim a war between superpowers is not possible, I claimed that in Europe it was not. I don’t believe Russia to be a super power, and I believe their offensive capabilities are greatly reduced. European leaders are realising with the U.S. election that a leader that they believe won’t support them may get into power and so they’re preparing the public for European defense spending to spike. You have to convince people Russia will attack to do so, something I don’t see happening or making sense unless we assume Putin has a literal death wish - but this comes down to politics about predicting something we simply don’t know, and a joke of Russia not being a superpower anymore. As for your version of contested airspace, I can’t find a specified definition that would be useful to come to an exact decision and therefore all we can do is argue our specific views on what that is. So - what Ukraines airspace is, is what I’m referring to, when it comes to arguing semantics I’m quick to realise how little it means to the bigger picture and I’d rather concede than spend time on it. the SU-25 being the most numerous plane the Russians have lost ties in with my point in the video. The Russians are using it so much more than essentially any other air frame, I don’t believe the A-10 would be used without loss, the tool you use the most is most likely to get damaged and destroyed, that’s simply war, and using the loss numbers of the SU-25 in a vacuum misses the nuance of why that loss rate is so high. And to your last point, this is where we don’t actually disagree, and is exactly why I believe the A-10 is outdated and due retirement. Thanks for taking the time to write this, I appreciate it, and thanks for watching!

Pov literally any military vehicle ever: Interservice rivalry intensifies

​@@mamarussellthepie3995*crying children noises* But at least we're not at Imperial Japanese levels.

@@daseinzigwahrem *Children crying in B52 carpet bombing*

Igla go brrrr

It'd die.

It will perform similarly to the Su-25 in service in Ukraine: flying low and fast to avoid detection. It‘s a perfectly viable substitution for those aircraft and Ukraine will likely make good use of them. Obviously no one should expect miracles. The A-10 will be used to fire unguided rockets in lofting attacks against Russian positions. Maybe they can also make use of some laser guided munitions with designation form drones or from the ground. In general, the A-10 would increase the flexibility of the Ukraine airforce and work well with the F-16 A/B MLU promised to Ukraine by some European countries. Increasing the number of aircraft in Ukraine airforce will increase strain on the VKS (Russian airforce) as they attempt to intercept or „mission kill“ Ukrainian sorties and help Ukraine rebalance the current artillery deficiency they experience by being able to strike or suppress the artillery positions, much like Russia did when they run into artillery supply problems (before North Korean deliveries).

Ironically it's the other way around historically 😅 Congress has religeously saved it from USAF dropkicks multiple times, weather it be Crazy people in congress or Sane people :)

I did admit that when I said it was overdue retirement, I’m not some silly reformer you poopy head.

Problem with that is that you have to incorporate many (if not all) sensors from F-35 and recode everything around it - which is a hell of an idea but damn that would cost a lot

It has no air to air radar so how would it even fire the AIM 120s genius? Second you can't just "give it" the F35s helmet without massively upgrading the airframe with sensors that actually make the helmet work. Clown comment 🤡.

@@cattledog901 buddy have you ever herd of a joke

@@juliuszkocinski7478 it’s worth it 🤣

Except that Ukraine does not want the A10. They want F16 and I'm sure if they can afford it they would grab the F35. The Su25 can do what the A10 does, and the Ukrainians hardly use their Su25's because it's not the right environment for it as losses to date have shown.

This THIS. Dude I feel the exact same way about the Hog. It amazes me how people seem to think that the USAF is still flying the A-10 of the 90’s, and that working as a coordinated team isn’t a defining aspect of how the Air Force fights

SEAD can't be everywhere every time. SEAD mostly deals with radar based threats. Short range defenses often use IR seekers, laser beam riding or electro-optical tracking. Air superiority is kind of a non issue as the A-10s problem is that the threat isn't coming from the air, but the ground. The friendly fire incidents show that A-10 pilots being close will not prevent them from firing on friendlies. From a couple thousand feet, and even at a leisurely pace of under 300 knots, soldiers are just blobs and smears. The same proximity also puts the A-10 exactly where non-radar weapons are most effective, allowing for SAM ambushes that evade SEAD or air superiority. The experience of most ground forces calling in CAS are in extremely permissive environments like Afghanistan or the fight against ISIS. They ask for what worked for them. Had they been put through Ukraine, they'd be asking for F-16s and Strike Eagles.

​@@phoenix11fx45 the A-10C's biggest improvement over the A-10A is basically getting the same stuff that makes the F-16 multirole. Targeting pods, HOTAS and MFDs.

it would never survive a fight with a near peer. The amount of MANPADS that would be deployed would deny any deployment of this aircraft.

Care to account for its myriad blue-on-blue incidents?

APKWS+HEAT warhead intensifies 😋

Except it's not as durable as popular perception (although it is certainly more so than fast-movers), its combat effectiveness is questionable (particularly in the Gulf War), and it's not low-cost any more because of all the additional sensors and targeting systems they had to put on it because actual combat showed it wasn't effective without them. "Fuck you and everyone near you," while cute, isn't a flex; in CAS, what's near the target includes friendlies, by definition.

If you took this as an argument for it staying in service then neither is your viewership.

@@KabodaOfficial Neither of us is assuming this is an argument for it staying in service. But at least we agree on one thing. have a nice life.

@user-gw1qy1rw9k Then how is the argument poor?

Don't make me come down there

@@KabodaOfficiallmfao

Together, they slap 😉