Sweden to buy 60 next-generation Gripen despite Swiss pullout, cites the situation in Ukraine as one
120 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45848458]We're using the B-1b for more CAS than we are the A-10, with good reason. Longer loiter times, more ordinance. The A-10 is rapidly loosing relevance in the modern battlefield, better to retire it now than attempt to use it against anyone competent.[/QUOTE]
Though the B-1B provides CAS for situations where you have a built up runway in range that is of sufficient length to launch and retrieve the bomber. You also need to be able to effectively laze the target or provide exact coordinates (though granted, in a pinch the B-1 can just say "fuck yo' mountain" and level the entire goddamn thing because B-1B's are flying death machines of loathing. That is, however, going to be expensive and generate a lot of collateral damage).
Meanwhile the A-10 is a lot more flexible once on scene. It has a decent number of gun runs at its disposal and can even hit a target with FFAR's.
This isn't to say that the B-1B isn't awesome. I'm a fan of the proposed plan to outfit them with a shitload of BVR missiles and a data link with an F-22 so the F-22 can stealthily locate enemy aircraft and send the targeting data back to the B1, who then launches BVR missiles at the enemy aircraft from far outside of their detection range. I like the idea of B1 pilots gaining ace status for shooting down a wing of enemy aircraft that they never even saw on RADAR. :D
I actually wonder if we have 60 people that can fly them.
[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]
It's also slow, and if I recall, was the first aircraft to get shot down in 'shock and awe' campaign. It's not the only jet to be fucked up bad and able to land, F15's have been mangled and flew back with one wing/engine and landed safely. F35's are having trouble yes, but so does virtually every weapon system during trials, nothing can be without faults.
[editline]31st August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45840173][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]
F35's are much faster and have stealth capabilities, which would make it much harder to shoot down.
Seriously, the A10 is an amazing plane, but people act like it's the be-all-end all of planes and nothing should replace it.
Keeping the A-10 defeats the whole purpose of the JSF program
It's gonna have its growing pains sure, but fighters are heading towards the way of MBTs whether you like it or not
The A-10 is the heavy tank of the sky, and it's going to be made obsolete by modern aa weapons
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
Right now the A-10 isn't "good", it's "good enough"
The second we fight anyone who can reliably shoot down A-10's, they're all going to be grounded and then we'll have a huge gap in our CAS forces
The A-10 is so static that no change of tactics or upgrades will be able to save it
[QUOTE=Jund;45849449]Keeping the A-10 defeats the whole purpose of the JSF program
It's gonna have its growing pains sure, but fighters are heading towards the way of MBTs whether you like it or not
The A-10 is the heavy tank of the sky, and it's going to be made obsolete by modern aa weapons
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
Right now the A-10 isn't "good", it's "good enough"
The second we fight anyone who can reliably shoot down A-10's, they're all going to be grounded and then we'll have a huge gap in our CAS forces
The A-10 is so static that no change of tactics or upgrades will be able to save it[/QUOTE]
You are talking as if the A-10 only carries a big gun, but it can infact deliver the same kind of weapons as any other modern jet. Laser guided bombs, GPS guided bombs, many cluster munitions, many missiles with different kinds of sensoric systems for different weather.
The A-10 nowadays is kinda like a pizza delivery shop. It stays in the air for a long time, while JTAC sends data about targets. The A-10 can then set the coordinates of the target or let the ground troops use laser designators to destroy them.
And a fully loaded F35 has the same problems as the F16 when it is fully loaded, it loses lots of maneuverability which is why it will need air superiority just as the A-10 when it goes tankhunting. And with additional pylons on the wings it loses its stealth capabilities.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45849659]You are talking as if the A-10 only carries a big gun, but it can infact deliver the same kind of weapons as any other modern jet. Laser guided bombs, GPS guided bombs, many cluster munitions, many missiles with different kinds of sensoric systems for different weather.
The A-10 nowadays is kinda like a pizza delivery shop. It stays in the air for a long time, while JTAC sends data about targets. The A-10 can then set the coordinates of the target or let the ground troops use laser designators to destroy them.
And a fully loaded F35 has the same problems as the F16 when it is fully loaded, it loses lots of maneuverability which is why it will need air superiority just as the A-10 when it goes tankhunting. And with additional pylons on the wings it loses its stealth capabilities.[/QUOTE]
One of the above posts stated this as well, but you don't send in an entire sortie of F35s solely kitted out for the air-to-ground role. Some fly escort, to protect the craft against enemy air threats. Further, the F35 carries similar (vastly improved, in some cases) weapons systems to the A10. Additionally, the long loiter time you speak of could potentially be deadly to the A10. Hanging around a battlefield in an antiquated aircraft with decades old counter-measures against hostiles with modern air defense will likely end up in the destruction of the aircraft. While I support keeping a limited number of them around for counter-insurgency operations, it is a completely useless aircraft in relation to engaging a modern combatant.
Here's the thing though:
The A-10 is already deployed and working smoothly
and doesn't cost an absolute _fuckton_ to replace.
There's your answer.
[QUOTE=Anders118;45849732]One of the above posts stated this as well, but you don't send in an entire sortie of F35s solely kitted out for the air-to-ground role. Some fly escort, to protect the craft against enemy air threats. Further, the F35 carries similar (vastly improved, in some cases) weapons systems to the A10. Additionally, the long loiter time you speak of could potentially be deadly to the A10. Hanging around a battlefield in an antiquated aircraft with decades old counter-measures against hostiles with modern air defense will likely end up in the destruction of the aircraft. While I support keeping a limited number of them around for counter-insurgency operations, it is a completely useless aircraft in relation to engaging a modern combatant.[/QUOTE]
And who says that you can't upgrade the A-10 so it can carry these weapons? or have better counter measures?
[url]https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-highertech-hog-the-a10c-pe-program-03187/[/url]
[QUOTE]The Precision Engagement modification is the largest single upgrade effort ever undertaken for the USA’s unique A-10 “Warthog” close air support aircraft fleet. While existing A/OA-10 aircraft continue to outperform technology-packed rivals on the battlefield, this set of upgrades is expected to make them more flexible, and help keep the aircraft current until the fleet’s planned phase-out in 2028. When complete, A-10C PE will give USAF A-10s precision strike capability sooner than planned, combining multiple upgrades into 1 time and money-saving program, rather than executing them as standalone projects. Indeed, the USAF accelerated the PE program by 9 months as a result of its experiences in Operation Iraqi Freedom.[/QUOTE]
And why not use the F22 as an escort which is far superior for air to air combat?
The only new weapons that the F35 is carrying are Anti-Ship missiles (The A-10 isn't used for this) and Cruise missiles (You don't use these for Close Air Support). All the other weapons are the same, including the Mk20 Rockeye, Paveway laser guided bombs, wind corrected munitions, cluster bombs, and general purpose bombs. No superior versions, the exactly same versions.
[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]
there is a good reason the a-10 is kept around, and that is it's literally a flying tank. it's not able to fly into an area with planes flying around to kill it for obvious reasons but it's built to take aa fire, and lay down some goddamn hurt on the ground no matter what it is.
slap some state-of-the-art engines on her, update computers, bam, future proof
(i know that's not how things work but i want to believe dammit, the a-10 is the last cool plane we have, the rest are all ~<([stealth])>~ fighters)
[QUOTE=Tmaxx;45849915]there is a good reason the a-10 is kept around, and that is it's literally a flying tank. it's not able to fly into an area with planes flying around to kill it for obvious reasons but it's built to take aa fire, and lay down some goddamn hurt on the ground no matter what it is.
slap some state-of-the-art engines on her, update computers, bam, future proof
(i know that's not how things work but i want to believe dammit, the a-10 is the last cool plane we have, the rest are all ~<([stealth])>~ fighters)[/QUOTE]
Yeah and there's a good reason they're retiring it, and that is it flys as slow and is visible as a tank
Not helping the image of people who want to keep the A-10 as fanboys who only think it looks cool
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45849892]And who says that you can't upgrade the A-10 so it can carry these weapons? or have better counter measures?
[url]https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-highertech-hog-the-a10c-pe-program-03187/[/url]
And why not use the F22 as an escort which is far superior for air to air combat?
The only new weapons that the F35 is carrying are Anti-Ship missiles (The A-10 isn't used for this) and Cruise missiles (You don't use these for Close Air Support). All the other weapons are the same, including the Mk20 Rockeye, Paveway laser guided bombs, wind corrected munitions, cluster bombs, and general purpose bombs. No superior versions, the exactly same versions.[/QUOTE]
Why the everloving fuck would we upgrade it?
The airframe is old, the electronics are old, the gun is old. You want to put millions of dollars and a decade into r&d so we can have a modern A-10 that'll get instantly shot down the moment we stop fighting dirt farmers?
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
The difference between an A-10 dropping short range bombs and an F-35 dropping short range bombs is that the F-35 has a chance to get away afterwards
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
I dunno maybe I'd be more convinced if A-10 supporters actually sounded like they knew what they were talking about instead of saying shit like "it's invincible!!" or "just upgrade it!!"
[QUOTE=Why485;45845602]What F-14s?
The majority of them were destroyed so that the Iranians wouldn't have a black market of spare parts to keep their own flying. The ones that weren't destroyed have been neutered and sent to museums with their wings clipped.
The only airworthy F-14s left in the world are now falling apart in Iran. It's a God damned crime what happened to the Tomcat.
[img]http://www.codacomsystems.com/AMARC/PictureDatabase/F014/AN1K0016_158988_F014A_AMARC.jpg[/img][/QUOTE]
In the 90's there were militarized F-14's floating around in the US civil market. Apparently some scrap company got the contract to destroy them, but decided it was more cost effective to sell them.
Sadly the government caught up to it, seized them, then destroyed them :c
Going with your fairy tail F-22 escort, you'd have to first launch SEAD craft, then F-22s to escort the SEAD craft, then have the SEAD craft loiter because even the Serbs learned how to hide from SEAD, then the A-10s, then more F-22 escorts
By the time you pull that off the guys on the ground are already dead. Shoulda just launched a stealth multirole or cruise missile or something
[editline]30th August 2014[/editline]
And then the enemy turns on radar only when your A-10s are in range and they all get shot down
Bummer...
What can the A-10 do that modern helicopters and drones can't?
also if a heavy payload tactical bomber is so useful, why don't they just make an unmanned A-10 without a cannon?
darpa pls hire
You seem to forget that all your fancy stealth isn't gonna work if you got to carry the weapons at the external pylons. If you wanna use stealth you got to rely on the internal weapon bays alone, which dramatically reduces the amount of payload you can carry which makes using it as Close Air Support useless.
[editline]31st August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;45851320]What can the A-10 do that modern helicopters and drones can't?
also if a heavy payload tactical bomber is so useful, why don't they just make an unmanned A-10 without a cannon?
darpa pls hire[/QUOTE]
Humans have a better situational awareness by being on the scene. And don't forget about latency lowering reaction times that come with a radio controlled aircraft. A lower reaction time can be the deciding factor between a flying airplane and a dead airplane.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45851346]You seem to forget that all your fancy stealth isn't gonna work if you got to carry the weapons at the external pylons. If you wanna use stealth you got to rely on the internal weapon bays alone, which dramatically reduces the amount of payload you can carry which makes using it as Close Air Support useless.[/QUOTE]
that sounds like a weird way to spin the fact that it can do more than one thing
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45851346]Humans have a better situational awareness by being on the scene. And don't forget about latency lowering reaction times that come with a radio controlled aircraft. A lower reaction time can be the deciding factor between a flying airplane and a dead airplane.[/QUOTE]
put the cockpit in a nearby ewacs aircraft and implement an autopilot capable of return flight.
The A-10 is already designed around being shot down - seems weird to still put a pilot inside.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;45851375]that sounds like a weird way to spin the fact that it can do more than one thing[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;aXQ2lO3ieBA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA[/video]
You can't have everything in one product. And you are dodging the statement. You want to use it as a CAS plane and go on about how stealth makes it invincible, but it can't have stealth and carry all the weapons needed for doing the job at the same time. And then there is the higher cost, higher maintenance in countries that don't have ideal weather conditions, lower loitering time and all the other points already posted in this thread. What is the plane gonna do if there is an AA gun seeing it with visual sensors? It is not invisible. And what about heat seeking missiles from manpads?
[QUOTE]put the cockpit in a nearby ewacs aircraft and implement an autopilot capable of return flight.
The A-10 is already designed around being shot down - seems weird to still put a pilot inside. [/QUOTE]
By being on the scene I mean in the cockpit.
[url]http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/why-uavs-cannot-replace-fighter-aircraft/[/url]
It has always seemed to me like the best solution is to design several purpose built aircraft that have huge part commonality between them. You simply can't beat an aircraft being specifically designed to do something.
All the weird shit on the A-10 has a purpose based around being a CAS aircraft. All the landing gear are hinged so that in a complete power loss, if you unlock the gear, the wind resistance will cause them to deploy. The engines are placed high on the aircraft to allow it to use unimproved runways without sucking in rocks and other foreign objects as well as to allow the aircraft to land and be rearmed without shutting down or sucking in any ground crew.
You just aren't going to get all the little shit in a JSF.
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45851346]And don't forget about latency lowering reaction times that come with a radio controlled aircraft. A lower reaction time can be the deciding factor between a flying airplane and a dead airplane.[/QUOTE]
This is kind of irrelevant as far as the A-10 is concerned...
Yeah, reaction time may be relevant when two 5th gen airplanes are going at it in a dogfight. And even then, your point is assuming that in a UAV, all computation is being done on the ground. It's far more likely that in a UAV dogfight scenario, all processing would be done on-board, which means that the plane's response time would probably be even faster than that of a pilot.
But all of that is irrelevant anyways, because an A-10 will never be in a dogfight. It's entire mission is to fly over a land target that has been designated by troops, blow it to bits, and fly back. Any airplane that's capable of engaging an A-10 in a dogfight will blow it to bits, pilot or no pilot. And MANPADS is irrelevant as well, because they work just as well, whether you have a pilot or not. In fact, it can be argued that a plane without a pilot can pull high-G dodging maneuvers that a pilot wouldn't be able to. So once again, your point fails.
[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;45852085]This is kind of irrelevant as far as the A-10 is concerned...
Yeah, reaction time may be relevant when two 5th gen airplanes are going at it in a dogfight. And even then, your point is assuming that in a UAV, all computation is being done on the ground. It's far more likely that in a UAV dogfight scenario, all processing would be done on-board, which means that the plane's response time would probably be even faster than that of a pilot.
But all of that is irrelevant anyways, because an A-10 will never be in a dogfight. It's entire mission is to fly over a land target that has been designated by troops, blow it to bits, and fly back. Any airplane that's capable of engaging an A-10 in a dogfight will blow it to bits, pilot or no pilot. And MANPADS is irrelevant as well, because they work just as well, whether you have a pilot or not. In fact, it can be argued that a plane without a pilot can pull high-G dodging maneuvers that a pilot wouldn't be able to. So once again, your point fails.[/QUOTE]
Reaction times are needed in response to hostile actions, such as dodging missiles and ground fire. Try playing an FPS with latency times of 5 seconds. And you seem to missed my post about how an A-10 survived a missile by a MANPADS
[QUOTE=Impact1986;45855104]Reaction times are needed in response to hostile actions, such as dodging missiles and ground fire. Try playing an FPS with latency times of 5 seconds. And you seem to missed my post about how an A-10 survived a missile by a MANPADS[/QUOTE]
I'm no aircraft expert at all, but just because it survived a missile fired by a MANPAD doesn't mean that that's typical performance.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.