• Raptors on the Prowl | F-22 Stealth Fighters deployed to South Korea
    74 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CuppethCake;49768843]Yes but the point at hand is the fact the Gau-8 had trouble even destroying T-62's, yes it [I]was[/I] possible, but only at certain points - the gist is, the Gau-8 had trouble destroying T-62's. Anyone who thinks the A-10's main weapon will do anything to even well armed APC's today are crazy. Source: A-10 pilots manual[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing against that. At all. The guy I responded to suggested that it wasn't designed to kill tanks, when it was.
[QUOTE=Riller;49769005]So are attack helicopters like Apaches or Cobras, probably more so.[/QUOTE] A-10's are faster, can carry bombs (which are also cheap and far more devastating than Hellfire), and are quite resilient to AAA and shoulder launched missiles. I love helicopters more than any other aircraft, but speed, loiter, and range are pretty nasty limitations.
You guys don't know shit about planes
[QUOTE=raz r23;49770332]You guys don't know shit about planes[/QUOTE] You take that back bro I'll have you know I just shot down 5 Su-27's in DCS
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;49758992]Do they have [I]anything[/I] that could sniff out an F-22 before its too late to react?[/QUOTE] No. Could take out large radars from Seoul using HARM's. No joke. And the large ones are the ones that can possibly detect an F-22. But those things are just easy targets, literally sitting there sending out a SHOOT ME beacon. Now those combined with Russia's spiffy long ass range SAM's would be a problem for any aircraft, but not for the F-22 or F-35.
Haha love you saxon But really.The A-10, built in the 1970s by Fairchild Industries, skims the ground at lower than 1,000 in altitude, can nearly hover over the battlefield, The A-10's large, unswept high-aspect ratio wing and large ailerons give it excellent low-speed, low-altitude maneuverability. The wing also allows short takeoffs and landings. That's handy, because this plane frequently needs to operate from primitive forward airfields near the front lines. The wing skin isn't load-bearing, so damaged skin sections can be replaced easily in the field, and with makeshift materials if necessary. slow and low and spews out almost 4,000 rounds of armor-penetrating bullets per minute. (These are also the weapons coated with depleted uranium that have irradiated so much of Iraq and Afghanistan.) Pilots love the plane because it is easy to fly and safe: the cockpit is sealed in a titanium shell to protect the pilot from groundfire, it has a bulky but sturdy frame, three sets of back up controls and a foam-filled fuel tank and easy to rebuild twin engines that are durable and reliable even in a sandstorm. Of course, the most damning factor against the A-10 in the eyes of the generals is the fact that it is old, ugly and cheap - especially cheap. The Air Force generals are infatuated with big ticket items, new technology and sleek new machines. The fastest way to a promotion inside the Air Force is to hitch your name to a rising new weapons system, the more expensive the better. When it comes time to retire, the generals who've spent their careers pumping new weapons systems are assured of landing lucrative new careers with defense contractors. So each time the A-10 proves itself in battle, the cries for its extinction by Air Force generals become more intense and hysterical. Since the first Gulf War, where the A-10 outperformed every other aircraft even though the Stealth fighter got all the hype, the Air Force has been quietly mothballing the A-10 fleet. During the first Gulf War, the A-10s destroyed more than half of the 1,700 Iraqi tanks knocked out by air strikes. A-10s also took out about 300 armored personnel carriers and artillery sites. At the end of the war there were 18 A-10 squadrons. Now they've been winnowed down to only eight. It is a tank buster. Is is old fuck yes. A remake of the A-10 warhog would do better then a F-35
[QUOTE=raz r23;49770371]Haha love you saxon But really.The A-10, built in the 1970s by Fairchild Industries, skims the ground at lower than 1,000 in altitude, can nearly hover over the battlefield, slow and low and spews out almost 4,000 rounds of armor-penetrating bullets per minute. (These are also the weapons coated with depleted uranium that have irradiated so much of Iraq and Afghanistan.) Pilots love the plane because it is easy to fly and safe: the cockpit is sealed in a titanium shell to protect the pilot from groundfire, it has a bulky but sturdy frame, three sets of back up controls and a foam-filled fuel tank. • Of course, the most damning factor against the A-10 in the eyes of the generals is the fact that it is old, ugly and cheap - especially cheap. The Air Force generals are infatuated with big ticket items, new technology and sleek new machines. The fastest way to a promotion inside the Air Force is to hitch your name to a rising new weapons system, the more expensive the better. When it comes time to retire, the generals who've spent their careers pumping new weapons systems are assured of landing lucrative new careers with defense contractors. • So each time the A-10 proves itself in battle, the cries for its extinction by Air Force generals become more intense and hysterical. Since the first Gulf War, where the A-10 outperformed every other aircraft even though the Stealth fighter got all the hype, the Air Force has been quietly mothballing the A-10 fleet. During the first Gulf War, the A-10s destroyed more than half of the 1,700 Iraqi tanks knocked out by air strikes. A-10s also took out about 300 armored personnel carriers and artillery sites. At the end of the war there were 18 A-10 squadrons. Now they've been winnowed down to only eight. It is a tank buster. Is is old fuck yes. A remake of the A-10 warhog would do better then a F-35 •[/QUOTE] Re-making an A-10 could do better than an F-35, if they got rid of the cannon, so they could squeeze on more ordinance. But if you have F-35's why bother. The F-35 can already carry more ordinance than the A-10, it has stealth, it's just as tough as the A-10, it has Air to Air capability, It has one fucking HELL of a missile detection system (Detected a missile launch during a test flight. It was SpaceX's Falcon 9 launching. 1000 miles away.) The only problem is they're expensive, and have less range/loiter time (Without tanks) Everyone likes to bad mouth the F-35 for costing so much, but fail to realize that that's the price that includes R&D, 2200 Aircraft, the fuel, parts, maintenance, upgrades and weapons. It'll be the majority of our air combat force through the year 2065 or some shit, costing a whopping 0.03% of the USA's total earnings over that period. Big woop. Bring on the F-35
[QUOTE=TheTalon;49770429] The only problem is they're expensive, and have less range/loiter time (Without tanks) Everyone likes to bad mouth the F-35 for costing so much, but fail to realize that that's the price that includes R&D, 2200 Aircraft, the fuel, parts, maintenance, upgrades and weapons. It'll be the majority of our air combat force through the year 2065 or some shit, costing a whopping 0.03% of the USA's total earnings over that period. Big woop. Bring on the F-35[/QUOTE] the problem i have with the f-35 is the way they intend to pay for it, so basically they put a discount on the first batches to entice foreign contracts and get it straight into production, then while they work out the bugs on the hardware and software that isn't matured they start increasing the price to pay for modifications, retrofits, and out right upgrades to the old versions which were built before they got all the things worked out. so over its lifetime the production aircraft get more expensive then eventually it will start to get cheaper to produce, but its the whole "build it first, then fix it later" model which seems pretty unsustainable
[QUOTE=raz r23;49770332]You guys don't know shit about planes[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=raz r23;49770371]Haha love you saxon But really.The A-10, built in the 1970s by Fairchild Industries, skims the ground at lower than 1,000 in altitude, can nearly hover over the battlefield, The A-10's large, unswept high-aspect ratio wing and large ailerons give it excellent low-speed, low-altitude maneuverability. The wing also allows short takeoffs and landings. That's handy, because this plane frequently needs to operate from primitive forward airfields near the front lines. The wing skin isn't load-bearing, so damaged skin sections can be replaced easily in the field, and with makeshift materials if necessary. slow and low and spews out almost 4,000 rounds of armor-penetrating bullets per minute. (These are also the weapons coated with depleted uranium that have irradiated so much of Iraq and Afghanistan.) Pilots love the plane because it is easy to fly and safe: the cockpit is sealed in a titanium shell to protect the pilot from groundfire, it has a bulky but sturdy frame, three sets of back up controls and a foam-filled fuel tank and easy to rebuild twin engines that are durable and reliable even in a sandstorm. Of course, the most damning factor against the A-10 in the eyes of the generals is the fact that it is old, ugly and cheap - especially cheap. The Air Force generals are infatuated with big ticket items, new technology and sleek new machines. The fastest way to a promotion inside the Air Force is to hitch your name to a rising new weapons system, the more expensive the better. When it comes time to retire, the generals who've spent their careers pumping new weapons systems are assured of landing lucrative new careers with defense contractors. So each time the A-10 proves itself in battle, the cries for its extinction by Air Force generals become more intense and hysterical. Since the first Gulf War, where the A-10 outperformed every other aircraft even though the Stealth fighter got all the hype, the Air Force has been quietly mothballing the A-10 fleet. During the first Gulf War, the A-10s destroyed more than half of the 1,700 Iraqi tanks knocked out by air strikes. A-10s also took out about 300 armored personnel carriers and artillery sites. At the end of the war there were 18 A-10 squadrons. Now they've been winnowed down to only eight. It is a tank buster. Is is old fuck yes. A remake of the A-10 warhog would do better then a F-35[/QUOTE] [img]http://puu.sh/ndlg6/2c294da723.PNG[/img] it's hilarious that you can even think about talking shit and then copy paste from popmech like you know shit about anything [url]http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a18236/why-the-a-10-warthog-is-such-a-badass-plane/[/url] [url]http://www.rense.com/general38/a10.htm[/url] i thought you people were dumb before but this takes the cake take your uglyass frankenstein post and go home
[QUOTE=Sableye;49770458]the problem i have with the f-35 is the way they intend to pay for it, so basically they put a discount on the first batches to entice foreign contracts and get it straight into production, then while they work out the bugs on the hardware and software that isn't matured they start increasing the price to pay for modifications, retrofits, and out right upgrades to the old versions which were built before they got all the things worked out. so over its lifetime the production aircraft get more expensive then eventually it will start to get cheaper to produce, but its the whole "build it first, then fix it later" model which seems pretty unsustainable[/QUOTE] I believe they're selling them in small quantities so that they won't have to retrofit a shit ton of them if there was some design change during testing somewhere, so that when they do start selling them in large quantities, retrofits aren't going to be needed for the large numbers already out, had they done so, and the price doesn't spike. Right now it's about $110m per jet which is cheaper than the Eurofighter
[QUOTE=Sableye;49770458]the problem i have with the f-35 is the way they intend to pay for it, so basically they put a discount on the first batches to entice foreign contracts and get it straight into production, then while they work out the bugs on the hardware and software that isn't matured they start increasing the price to pay for modifications, retrofits, and out right upgrades to the old versions which were built before they got all the things worked out. so over its lifetime the production aircraft get more expensive then eventually it will start to get cheaper to produce, but its the whole "build it first, then fix it later" model which seems pretty unsustainable[/QUOTE] as with the rest of f-35 development, this is completely standard fare. what do you mean by "isn't matured"? do you think we waited for block 60 before we started selling selling f-16s? they were barely out of the womb before we started shipping em out
Yes I'm lazy. but most people that know planes quite well know that the A10 is very stable and durable, its wingspan allows for slow flying at low altitude and speeds making it deadly for taking out ground targets as well as accurate there's a reason why it's been in service for so long and why the men and women that can rely on it for air to ground support. it's true that the forward armament was designed around the jet. but that same forward canon is known to tear through armored vehicles like butter. either way you talk it up if you hate it or like the a10 there's a valuable lessons in design and quality of the plane. design qualities that would suit a future air to ground aircraft. the f-35 seems to be more of a multirole fighter air to air superiority fighter something similar to an f-16 or F-17b Hornet as well as the a10 has gotten significantly upgraded, new weapon systems upgraded, digital panels, digital radar a host of electronic defense counter suits and a new armament and capability. The f-35 is still new and looks like a very capable fighter. so far pilots on the ground say that she can be finicky and the technology can sometimes be off and on if it works she's obviously very new and still has some ironing out to do but I hear she's going to be pretty badass. That and the plane is sexy girl curvy [editline]19th February 2016[/editline] Jund stop being so salty. it's an opinion not a dick don't take it so hard. and yes most of us on this form dont know what we are talking about because we are not aircraft aeronautic engineers so it's all really just opinions.
Your credibility is shot, dude. Just move on.
the level of aggressively in discussions on forums is getting worse over the decades ... or maybe just failure to read and understood what the other party wrote ... I wasn't the one claiming A-10 can or can't kill the tank and then arguing how F-35 is going to replace it (with +- same or weaker gun) I just pointed that non-sense out I wasn't the one claiming how F-35 can replace CAS plane type , just pointed that non-sense again (the quality of the airframe to prove it's robust to damages has to be seen as the question was always evaded) (it can't - just by plain look of the mission time it can stay in air in area of combat operations) I wasn't the one arguing that F-35 can survive layered AA defense of any seriously armed modern state nor I said same about A-10 (no plane in service can do that alone anyway ...) I simply just commented about the quality (proven by years of service) of A-10 and F-14 I never questioned theirs aging design and one day the need of true replacement (as the lifetime of airframe has it's maximal limits beyond which flying is pure risk each takeoff) replacements...one which is non-CAS non-Bomber fragile 'stealth' plane (fighter with multirole ability) same goes about my original post, twin-engine F-22 was valuable for any long-term flights with way higher survivability so, don't be shocked by other states fielding more of those 'lesser' twin-engine planes for fraction of price doing more job in shorter time ... just try calculate how many twin-engine Sukhoi or Mig planes you can buy per one F-35 ;) then slap some latest/next generation Israeli Python or Russian counterpart missile on it yes, maybe you lose 2,3 or 5 per one F-35 but it still be more cost effective contrary to someone thinking, I'm not against F-22 nor F-35 I just think theirs programs were overpriced w/o visible gains and the capabilities way overblown via marketing of terms la the all-can-be-done-by-1-plane ... expand the fleet with them ? yes sure, add them to the mix, rely on them w/o anything else, naïve someone here argued that copters are better choice, yes and no, again specific usage US/NATO forces had light and fast and medium copters and never hard 'flying tank' like Hind in fact those states which joined NATO with Hind in theirs arsenal were 'envied' to have some (and still being used) ironically US had chance to build theirs own flying tank, the Lockheed AH-56 "Cheyenne" but there was no will to finalize the program due to some over-costs (totally microscopic compared to e.g. Boeing V-22 "Osprey" program length and cost) for future maybe that the Sikorsky S-97 "Raider X2" which is similar to AH-56 (to degree, as it's decades apart, diff rotors etc.) and build modern weapon platform on it [quote] super tucano, texan 2, ov-10 bronco, textron airland scorpion [/quote] I know about those ;) definitely Tucano is great plane for anti-guerila warfare and extremely cost-effective and fuel-usage friendly hard to tell about survival ability tho, information about losses of those in South America aren't that good to obtain, but from I've seen it can survive more than light beating but not like A-10 speaking of CAS, if anyone of you watching Syrian Air Force, guess what's one of most loved reliable plane there? Czechoslovakia L-39 sub-sonic jet used for CAS ... it just keeps flying, it's simple to control, can survive beating, dust, heat, sand ... they even upgraded those rockets mounts from 40mm to 80mm ... ... but what I know right, as some overly-wise poster in this forum said "literally don't know anything, about anything" (isn't that mocking) thus I will move on, back to caring of family whose members built flying 'real' planes (and more ...)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.