Sweden to buy 60 next-generation Gripen despite Swiss pullout, cites the situation in Ukraine as one
120 replies, posted
[QUOTE=GunFox;45839169]For comparison, you can look at the F-14D stats, which is an old retired US aircraft of comparable weight.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat[/url]
They are surprisingly similar to the PAK FA. With better engines and some modifications, it might even match the PAK FA in performance in many respects.[/QUOTE]
F-14s were kickass birds but they had huge maintenance issues and their avionics were pretty awful apparently. Not to mention the thing is fuckhuge for a carrier based craft
[QUOTE=GunFox;45839169]For comparison, you can look at the F-14D stats, which is an old retired US aircraft of comparable weight.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat[/url]
They are surprisingly similar to the PAK FA. With better engines and some modifications, it might even match the PAK FA in performance in many respects.[/QUOTE]
I personally think the USN should bring the F-14D's out of retirement and use as is. Most are already fairly up to date with avionics and all, some may require a computer architecture update. I believe when it comes to carrier-based air superiority fighters, the F-14 is king. The F/A-18 should be supplementing the roles of the F-14. Until the USN starts receiving it's F-35C's and Marine flying units get theirs also, the F-14 should still be utilised.
The F35 is a average at everything, exceeding at nothing.
It was supposed to replace the good old A10 Warthog. This wonderful plane has 11 stores to hold weapons such as air to ground missiles, cluster bombs, guided bombs, rockets, etc. And if that isn't enough, it also features a 30mm cannon with 1350 rounds of 'Caramelized Marshmallows' (Combat Mix, a mix of armor piercing and high explosive incendiary rounds). As ground attacks are dangerous because of all the hot shit that is flying around, its cockpit is made out of a titanium armored 'bathtub', to ensure that the pilot will survive up to 37mm projectile hits. It is powered by twin engines, which are also armored, to make it possible to limp home on only one engine. It is the ideal ground attack plane.
The F35 carries a quad barrel 25mm cannon with only 180 rounds of ammunition, and the same amount of weapon pylons. But to use its stealth capabilities, it has to depend on the internal stores alone, which greatly reduces the amount of weapons it can carry. The plane isn't as armored as the Warthog, while also only having one engine, which means in case you lose it, your plane is done.
It is the Bradley IFV of the skies.
[video=youtube;aXQ2lO3ieBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/video]
Great, now us Brits should follow suit and re-introduce the harrier
[QUOTE=GunFox;45839169]For comparison, you can look at the F-14D stats, which is an old retired US aircraft of comparable weight.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F-14_Tomcat[/url]
They are surprisingly similar to the PAK FA. With better engines and some modifications, it might even match the PAK FA in performance in many respects.[/QUOTE]
Perfect example of how most people only look at surface stats when comparing aircraft
They look at max speed and maybe max-g turns, not paying attention to avionics, electronics, RCS, sustained turn rates, loaded statistics, quality of nation's AWACS, and quality of missiles
[editline]29th August 2014[/editline]
Reintroducing/keeping 30-40 year old jets that are getting phased out is a terrible idea
Good thing that no one here is allowed to make major military decisions or we'd all be fucked
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45839332]The F35 is a average at everything, exceeding at nothing.
It was supposed to replace the good old A10 Warthog. This wonderful plane has 11 stores to hold weapons such as air to ground missiles, cluster bombs, guided bombs, rockets, etc. And if that isn't enough, it also features a 30mm cannon with 1350 rounds of 'Caramelized Marshmallows' (Combat Mix, a mix of armor piercing and high explosive incendiary rounds). As ground attacks are dangerous because of all the hot shit that is flying around, its cockpit is made out of a titanium armored 'bathtub', to ensure that the pilot will survive up to 37mm projectile hits. It is powered by twin engines, which are also armored, to make it possible to limp home on only one engine. It is the ideal ground attack plane.
The F35 carries a quad barrel 25mm cannon with only 180 rounds of ammunition, and the same amount of weapon pylons. But to use its stealth capabilities, it has to depend on the internal stores alone, which greatly reduces the amount of weapons it can carry. The plane isn't as armored as the Warthog, while also only having one engine, which means in case you lose it, your plane is done.
It is the Bradley IFV of the skies.
[video=youtube;aXQ2lO3ieBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/video][/QUOTE]
[I]When you compare it to the Warthog[/I], you also have to remember it's a fast jet, where the A10 was slow. Which meant it had more time on target. Not saying the F-35 is utter shit, just that a straight comparison between F-35 and A-10 is kinda senseless due to how different they are, even though they're meant to partially take on the same role.
[QUOTE=Jund;45839373]Perfect example of how most people only look at surface stats when comparing aircraft
They look at max speed and maybe max-g turns, not paying attention to avionics, electronics, RCS, sustained turn rates, loaded statistics, quality of nation's AWACS, and quality of missiles
[editline]29th August 2014[/editline]
Reintroducing/keeping 30-40 year old jets that are getting phased out is a terrible idea
Good thing that no one here is allowed to make major military decisions or we'd all be fucked[/QUOTE]
I was using it as an example of why the raw stats aren't reliable. An F-14 would totally be annihilated by the PAK FA.
Raw performance of aircraft hasn't changed too much in the past few decades. Super cruise became viable along with a few other things, but generally the improvements have all been much harder to quantify. Avionics advancements, better countermeasures, drastic changes to stealth tech, etc etc.
We're not keeping the A-10 because we won't be fighting jihads with AKs for the next 1000 years
[editline]29th August 2014[/editline]
Besides being slow it's absolutely fuckhuge
Any modern SPAAG or even MANPADS could probably take it out no problem
[QUOTE=Jund;45839481]Besides being slow it's absolutely fuckhuge
Any modern SPAAG or even MANPADS could probably take it out no problem[/QUOTE][citation needed]
[QUOTE=Jund;45839481]We're not keeping the A-10 because we won't be fighting jihads with AKs for the next 1000 years
[editline]29th August 2014[/editline]
Besides being slow it's absolutely fuckhuge
Any modern SPAAG or even MANPADS could probably take it out no problem[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://forums.airforce.ru/attachments/holodnaya-voina/26225d1283166590-10_sa-7_2.jpg/[/IMG]
[url]http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Stories1/001-100/0016_A-10-battle-damage/story0016.htm[/url]
It came home, because it had 2 engines. The F35 has only one engine. So I am pretty sure the F35 is more vulnerable than the A10.
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;45839932][citation needed][/QUOTE]
I think you've quoted the wrong part.
It's not exactly a well guarded secret that you virtually need complete air superiority to utilize the A-10
[QUOTE=Riller;45835918]Better than us Danes, still stuck with our dick in the meatgrinder that is F-35.[/QUOTE]
laughed 5 seconds when i did read this comment.
Belgium's aircraft are a hot topic these days. We're still flying 30 year old F-16's, and the government is considering (read still unclear if they're going to buy them, because belgium is broke as hell) to buy a couple of F-35's.
Belgium's military is, has and always will be a joke.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45840173]
It came home, because it had 2 engines. The F35 has only one engine. So I am pretty sure the F35 is more vulnerable than the A10.[/QUOTE]
That's an ignorant argument. The F35 may not have even been hit in the first place because of its stealth. How can you make such a blanket statement and ignore such a massive aspect of the aircraft.
[QUOTE=Jund;45839481]We're not keeping the A-10 because we won't be fighting jihads with AKs for the next 1000 years[/QUOTE]
That's a stupid idea.
The A-10 is still balls-to-the-wall effective.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;45840347]That's a stupid idea.
The A-10 is still balls-to-the-wall effective.[/QUOTE]
But it has been found that the A10's gun is ineffective against modern armor? The craft is a "tank killer" after all. When it can't effectively kill tanks, it really isn't that effective in a modern combat scenario, which the F35 is designed for.
[QUOTE=Anders118;45840381]But it has been found that the A10's gun is ineffective against modern armor? The craft is a "tank killer" after all. When it can't effectively kill tanks, it really isn't that effective in a modern combat scenario, which the F35 is designed for.[/QUOTE]
Thing is, you can't expect a fighter to perform close-air support as well as a plane [I]especifically[/I] designed for that purpose, regardless of which combat scenario we're talking about. The main gun of the A-10 may be ineffective against modern armor (Sources, please), but the external weaponry sure as hell isn't.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;45840230]That's an ignorant argument. The F35 may not have even been hit in the first place because of its stealth. How can you make such a blanket statement and ignore such a massive aspect of the aircraft.[/QUOTE]
The A-10 in the picture was hit by an IR-seeking missile, Strela-2. F-35 does not have IR masking on-par with the F-22, but does have some advantage over A-10. If it'd been a radar-seeking one, F-35 would've had a giant advantage, but F-35s IR masking is up to debate, it's got a huge single engine to propel it's heavy ass around, resulting in high emissions - not ideal for stealth. I don't claim to have numbers, but I've got the hunch that it might be vulnerable to IR locks at a MANPADS range.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;45840230]That's an ignorant argument. The F35 may not have even been hit in the first place because of its stealth. How can you make such a blanket statement and ignore such a massive aspect of the aircraft.[/QUOTE]
The plane won't be really stealthy if it has to carry weapons on its external pylons. The A10 was hit on the engine. Which suggest that it was hit by a heat seeking missile. Add to this that CAS aircraft are visible from the ground any stealth capabilities are useless, because even Anti Air guns can target and shoot at it.
As the F35 doesn't feature the same vector thrust nozzles which reduce the heat signature as the F22, it will give an even bigger target than the A10 when the pilot has to do evasive maneuvers when he turns on the afterburner. All this extra weight because of the weapons makes it harder to do these maneuvers which means that the pilot either drops all the weapons and immediately returns home because he simply ran out of stuff to deploy, or he risks being shot down. Even the F22 uses 2 engines in case that something goes wrong.
In the development of technology you always go for the worst case scenario. Civilian Airliners have 3 computers so when 1 of those is malfunctioning and is sending wrong data the other 2 can overrule it and the plane can still fly. Most combat airplanes and helicopters feature 2 engines. The Phantom aircraft had no cannon at first because people thought that the missile technology will make guns obsolete. Then Vietnam happend which made them reconsider their decision. Redundancy is good. It saves lives.
And if you think stealth is the new invincible shield, then have a look at this:
[url]http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/27/vega-31-shot-down/[/url]
And this plane was specialized in stealth. And flying at high altitude. And you call me ignorant.
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Anders118;45840381]But it has been found that the A10's gun is ineffective against modern armor? The craft is a "tank killer" after all. When it can't effectively kill tanks, it really isn't that effective in a modern combat scenario, which the F35 is designed for.[/QUOTE]
There are still armies using old tanks which can still be swiss cheesed. If you hit modern tanks at the right angle you can still take them out. And the cannon isn't only used for killing tanks, but also providing suppressive fire for ground troops.
[QUOTE=Senna_vh;45840222]laughed 5 seconds when i did read this comment.
Belgium's aircraft are a hot topic these days. We're still flying 30 year old F-16's, and the government is considering (read still unclear if they're going to buy them, because belgium is broke as hell) to buy a couple of F-35's.
Belgium's military is, has and always will be a joke.[/QUOTE]
Fucking bullshit
Belgian paras in the Congo had an outstanding performance and are considered one of the best rapid response units in the world.
[QUOTE]And this plane was specialized in stealth. And flying at high altitude. And you call me ignorant.
[/QUOTE]
I am 100% sure air warfare in the next 10 to 20 years will be defined by active counter measures such as some kind of anti missile laser, because let's face it, miniaturization is something that always happens and I imagine that it will follow the same desing found on those systems that some tanks and IFVs have (Israeli "shotgun" that destroys incoming RPGs)
[QUOTE=T553412;45840465]Thing is, you can't expect a fighter to perform close-air support as well as a plane [I]especifically[/I] designed for that purpose, regardless of which combat scenario we're talking about. The main gun of the A-10 may be ineffective against modern armor (Sources, please), but the external weaponry sure as hell isn't.[/QUOTE]
Certainly. This is a report from the U.S. Air Force from the 80s, detailing the effectiveness of the GAU-8 platform in practical situations.
(Reference page 12 for effectiveness of GAU-8 against frontal armor of Soviet T-62s.)
[url]http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA085713[/url]
Basically, the A10 needs to fly at an extremely low altitude to avoid being instantly shredded by enemy air defenses. That being said, extremely high attack angles which do the most damage to enemy armor is not feasible. The enemy tank must be attacked either frontally, via the side, or via the rear. While side and rear attacks were relatively successful (resulting in three kills and two mobility kills), it required a significant amount of loiter time, which in a modern combat scenario against advanced enemy surface-to-air defenses, is deadly.
You also bring up the point of the A10's munitions. The F35 supports better ones. The F35 carries the AGM-158, which yields a significantly higher blast yield than the AGM-65 (The thing that actually inflicts MBT kills) utilized on the A10, and can be fired from over 370km away, compared to the 65's 22km. The 158 is also compatible with the F35's internal weapons bays, maintaining stealth. More can be carried via external hardpoints.
My point is this. The A10 is a relic of an aircraft and needs to be retired (The USAF is actively trying to do this). It is slow, it can't do its job effectively without total air superiority and absence of significant SAM emplacements, and its armor simply doesn't hold up to modern SAM systems.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45837109]Oh god yeah. The thing is like half the price.
Edit: the gripen is half the price[/QUOTE]
How is the F35A compared to its VTOL brother? All I've heard is "The F35 is crap" but I'm pretty sure they're always referring to the VTOL variant, no?
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;45840955]How is the F35A compared to its VTOL brother? All I've heard is "The F35 is crap" but I'm pretty sure they're always referring to the VTOL variant, no?[/QUOTE]
From a performance standpoint, the A is superior to the B in every way except for its lack of VTOL capability. It can pull a higher amount of G's, has greater range, better maneuverability, and is able to carry a greater load.
[QUOTE=T553412;45840465]Thing is, you can't expect a fighter to perform close-air support as well as a plane [I]especifically[/I] designed for that purpose, regardless of which combat scenario we're talking about. The main gun of the A-10 may be ineffective against modern armor (Sources, please), but the external weaponry sure as hell isn't.[/QUOTE]
Armor penetration:
69 mm at 500 meters
38 mm at 1,000 meters
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger[/url]
Yay it can hurt the tracks and maybe FCS of a T-72
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;45840347]That's a stupid idea.
The A-10 is still balls-to-the-wall effective.[/QUOTE]
do you have anything to add to that or is it just effective because you think it's cool
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45840703]The plane won't be really stealthy if it has to carry weapons on its external pylons. The A10 was hit on the engine. Which suggest that it was hit by a heat seeking missile. Add to this that CAS aircraft are visible from the ground any stealth capabilities are useless, because even Anti Air guns can target and shoot at it. [/quote]
[quote]The A-10 can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high explosive projectiles up to 23mm.[/quote]
That's from the website you posted and the one that everyone brings up when they circlejerk over the A-10
[quote]The armor has been tested to withstand strikes from 23 mm cannon fire and some strikes from 57 mm rounds.[/quote]
That's from wikipedia
The 9M311 SAM has a diameter of 76mm, M variant is 170mm
She took AAA fire from Iraq's ancient Soviet systems, who didn't have any effective SEAD counters
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45840703]And if you think stealth is the new invincible shield, then have a look at this:
[url]http://theaviationist.com/2014/03/27/vega-31-shot-down/[/url]
And this plane was specialized in stealth. And flying at high altitude. And you call me ignorant.[/QUOTE]
No one said stealth was invincible
The F-117 was the first operational stealth craft fielded and is now retired in lieu of more effective systems. It flew over 1000 sorties in the Gulf War with 0 losses, and still only has 1 combat loss. That is an incredible combat record
[QUOTE=Anders118;45840989]From a performance standpoint, the A is superior to the B in every way except for its lack of VTOL capability. It can pull a higher amount of G's, has greater range, better maneuverability, and is able to carry a greater load.[/QUOTE]
Then why the fuck are we buying these stupid things? VTOL has never seemed like a specifically useful trait in all honesty, other than to get a few of them flying slightly quicker - but is that honestly worth the tradeoff?
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;45841015]Then why the fuck are we buying these stupid things? VTOL has never seemed like a specifically useful trait in all honesty, other than to get a few of them flying slightly quicker - but is that honestly worth the tradeoff?[/QUOTE]
Carriers/technology demonstrator
[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;45841015]Then why the fuck are we buying these stupid things? VTOL has never seemed like a specifically useful trait in all honesty, other than to get a few of them flying slightly quicker - but is that honestly worth the tradeoff?[/QUOTE]
The U.K. lacks catapult based aircraft carriers capable of supporting the conventional takeoff naval model of the F35, the C variant.
[QUOTE=Dr.C;45837812]Because it has a shitload of problems. It was originally supposed to be a low-cost, multi-purpose alternative to the F-22 to replace the aging fleets of most of NATO but it has been a colossal money sink and it is way behind schedule.
The gripen and eurofighter are here now but the future of the F-35 isn't looking so good. Somebody else can explain it better than I can[/QUOTE]
Mind you, the eurofighter is last generation. The gripens should be fourth gen though. And then the f35 came along, originally envisioned as something akin to a 4th gen eurofighter. (just look at the participating nations).
I guess an eurofighter II might always happen, particularly the more negative clout the f35 gets.
[QUOTE=Jund;45840997]Armor penetration:
69 mm at 500 meters
38 mm at 1,000 meters
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger[/URL]
Yay it can hurt the tracks and maybe FCS of a T-72
do you have anything to add to that or is it just effective because you think it's cool
That's from the website you posted and the one that everyone brings up when they circlejerk over the A-10
That's from wikipedia
The 9M311 SAM has a diameter of 76mm, M variant is 170mm
She took AAA fire from Iraq's ancient Soviet systems, who didn't have any effective SEAD counters
No one said stealth was invincible
The F-117 was the first operational stealth craft fielded and is now retired in lieu of more effective systems. It flew over 1000 sorties in the Gulf War with 0 losses, and still only has 1 combat loss. That is an incredible combat record[/QUOTE]
Tbh CAS does have somewhat different reqs than regular duties, which is why aircraft flying CAS tend to bulkier, or tend to have somewhat different constructions. In part because they tend to have to fly a fair bit lower in order to provide effective CAS without endangering those calling it in.
Another factor that hugely plays into CAS is operating cost. An hour of a10 loiter is significantly cheaper than for an f35 and on top of that, the a10 can loiter for larger distances. There's a lot of other stuff going into it, but there's a reason why a lot of people have been criticising the f35 as an unsuitable a10 replacement.
There's a reason a warthog and frogfoot share more similarities together than with an f35. Because they're designed for the same job and perform it well.
EDIT
Fifth and fourth generations respectively. Third and fourth were a blu blu mind doesn't work moment.
[QUOTE=Anders118;45841052]The U.K. lacks catapult based aircraft carriers capable of supporting the conventional takeoff naval model of the F35, the C variant.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, has the F35B made any significant improvement in the last few years or has it been issue after issue still?
here's the handy dandy A-10 coloring book for fighting T-62s
[img]http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_053a_2.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_053a_3.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_053a_4.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_053a_5.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_053a_6.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_053a_7.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_053a_8.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_053a_9.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_053a_10.gif[/img]
[img]http://www.simhq.com/_air/images/air_053a_11.gif[/img]
just cause the hog has a big gun doesn't mean its magical bullets made of fairy dust and sparkles can kill a 50 year old tank from any angle
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.