[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809174]HE rounds will also have collateral damage concerns. As for their maneuverability, it's only because they're so slow and have such a large surface area on the wings. They are great ground attack aircraft, nothing else.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why you're bringing collateral damage into this. The 20mm rounds from a Vulcan would do immense damage if they hit some poor soul's home anyway, so it's not really relevant. As for maneuverability, I know. I'm just saying that they're not as "sluggish" as you're implying. They will easily out turn an average fighter.
[editline]12th December 2012[/editline]
the kind of thing that matters if we're talking about using the gun
[editline]12th December 2012[/editline]
And I'm not saying it's a fighter at all. Just that it has more than "zero air to air capability." It's just for self-defense.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809174]HE rounds will also have collateral damage concerns. As for their maneuverability, it's only because they're so slow and have such a large surface area on the wings. They are great ground attack aircraft, nothing else.[/QUOTE]
So why do we need another more expensive and far less effective jet doing ground attack when the A-10 has and is STILL doing an exceptional job.
Really I fail to see why the F-35 needs to progress to anything other than a R&D platform, other that the pseudo-stealth everything we have now is just flat out better.
[QUOTE=Apache249;38809209]I'm not sure why you're bringing collateral damage into this. The 20mm rounds from a Vulcan would do immense damage if they hit some poor soul's home anyway, so it's not really relevant. As for maneuverability, I know. I'm just saying that they're not as "sluggish" as you're implying. They will easily out turn an average fighter.
[editline]12th December 2012[/editline]
the kind of thing that matters if we're talking about using the gun
[editline]12th December 2012[/editline]
And I'm not saying it's a fighter at all. Just that it has more than "zero air to air capability." It's just for self-defense.[/QUOTE]
If you're engaging an aerial target with the GAU-8 you're looking at a large amount of high-explosive or depleted uranium rounds missing and going all over the place behind the target, which is a massive collateral damage threat.
As for turning, it'd be useful if your target didn't know you were there, or if you were engaging another aircraft in the same role such as an Su-25. Any fighter would pop a missile and move on.
[editline]13th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=goon165;38809243]So why do we need another more expensive and far less effective jet doing ground attack when the A-10 has and is STILL doing an exceptional job.
Really I fail to see why the F-35 needs to progress to anything other than a R&D platform, other that the pseudo-stealth everything we have now is just flat out better.[/QUOTE]
I'm not defending the F-35, this somehow came out of... something.
IMO, A-10 for ground attack and F-22 for air superiority. A multirole fighter is going to be needy and expensive, and when it's performing one task, that's one less aircraft that can do the other at that moment, which is a logistical issue.
[QUOTE=goon165;38809264]The A-10 would probably come out of that fine.[/QUOTE]
A-10s have flown home with damages that far exceed the acceptable structural damage brackets. They're like B-17s in terms of resilience, it's just ridiculous what these aircraft can be put through with the pilot sometimes [I]not even noticing[/I] the damages.
[QUOTE=Jund;38809204]The A-10 is a fighter jet in the sense that it could bring one down if you managed to sneak up on one that is stalling and crash into it
Why are we even talking about this[/QUOTE]
The A-10 would probably come out of that fine.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809246]If you're engaging an aerial target with the GAU-8 you're looking at a large amount of high-explosive or depleted uranium rounds missing and going all over the place behind the target, which is a massive collateral damage threat.[/QUOTE]
Well, yeah, if you miss it can be a huge mess. But, it's the same with any relatively large gun that you tend to find on any modern fighter. 20mm HE-I is going to leave a huge mess as well.
[QUOTE]As for turning, it'd be useful if your target didn't know you were there, or if you were engaging another aircraft in the same role such as an Su-25. Any fighter would pop a missile and move on.[/QUOTE]
Well, we're already talking hypothetically here, so no, not any fighter. One which ran out of missiles, never took off, had a malfunction etc. As I said, it's not fighter. It just have [B]very limited[/B] self-defense capability.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809246]
I'm not defending the F-35, this somehow came out of... something.
IMO, A-10 for ground attack and F-22 for air superiority. A multirole fighter is going to be needy and expensive, and when it's performing one task, that's one less aircraft that can do the other at that moment, which is a logistical issue.[/QUOTE]
it's not even going to be doing that job effectively anyway, the F-35 carries a pretty pathetic weapons payload.
Really it would be better suited for an interceptor role, but it's not remarkably fast ether.
Why the fuck would anyone want this?
[QUOTE=goon165;38809336]it's not even going to be doing that job effectively anyway, the F-35 carries a pretty pathetic weapons payload.
Really it would be better suited for an interceptor role, but it's not remarkably fast ether.
Why the fuck would anyone want this?[/QUOTE]
F-35's main advantage is its VTOL capability, which beats the Harrier's by a ton. For carrier and field operations, VTOL is invaluable, but trying to lump that feature in with everything else they wanted this aircraft to do ran the costs up way over acceptable margins. For multirole VTOL operations I hope the BA609 is at least given a chance in testing.
So.....
Canada?
Eh
Ugh, pull the plug. We're also building a brand new navy, no reason to keep supporting this overbloated disaster of a purchase.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809246]
A-10s have flown home with damages that far exceed the acceptable structural damage brackets. They're like B-17s in terms of resilience, it's just ridiculous what these aircraft can be put through with the pilot sometimes [I]not even noticing[/I] the damages.
[/QUOTE]
The one thing America's Aviation industry does better than anyone.
Durable as fuck Bombers and Ground Attack Planes.
[QUOTE=Apache249;38809320]Well, yeah, if you miss it can be a huge mess. But, it's the same with any relatively large gun that you tend to find on any modern fighter. 20mm HE-I is going to leave a huge mess as well.
Well, we're already talking hypothetically here, so no, not any fighter. One which ran out of missiles, never took off, had a malfunction etc. As I said, it's not fighter. It just have [B]very limited[/B] self-defense capability.[/QUOTE]
Aircraft on the ground or in the process of gaining altitude from the runway aren't considered air targets and hosing them down with the GAU would be child's play. I see what you're saying, but even so the pilot would have to be very lucky to score a kill against any air targets engaging it.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809348]F-35's main advantage is its VTOL capability, which beats the Harrier's by a ton. For carrier and field operations, VTOL is invaluable, but trying to lump that feature in with everything else they wanted this aircraft to do ran the costs up way over acceptable margins. For multirole VTOL operations I hope the BA609 is at least given a chance in testing.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that they tried too much with the VTOL, it's unrealistically heavy for the platform.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809384]Aircraft on the ground or in the process of gaining altitude from the runway aren't considered air targets and hosing them down with the GAU would be child's play. I see what you're saying, but even so the pilot would have to be very lucky to score a kill against any air targets engaging it.[/QUOTE]
AFAIK the A-10's air-to-air record consists of two choppers, both with cannon, so yeah...
45.8 Billion over 42 years on what is a Jet capable of doing every jet's role that we have, and even outright replacing a lot of them, doesn't seem that bad ...
[QUOTE=Apache249;38809441]AFAIK the A-10's air-to-air record consists of two choppers, both with cannon, so yeah...[/QUOTE]
Helicopters are nowhere near as fast as fixed-wing aircraft and they're far more fragile. A single hit could destroy both turbines in a twin engined helicopter, or even snap off a rotor.
e: oh, you were agreeing with me
[editline]13th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38809474]45.8 Billion over 42 years on what is a Jet capable of doing every jet's role that we have, and even outright replacing a lot of them, doesn't seem that bad ...[/QUOTE]
It isn't good enough at any of its multi-role capacities to replace the dedicated aircraft already in that role and it costs more than any other production aircraft we have. It's a massive money-sink.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809479]Helicopters are nowhere near as fast as fixed-wing aircraft and they're far more fragile. A single hit could destroy both turbines in a twin engined helicopter, or even snap off a rotor.[/QUOTE]
That was my point. They haven't scored any "real" air-to-air kills, and they may never. It seems like you're now trying to argue against a point I never tried to make.
[QUOTE=Apache249;38809518]That was my point. They haven't scored any "real" air-to-air kills, and they may never. It seems like you're now trying to argue against a point I never tried to make.[/QUOTE]
I misinterpreted your statement, my fault.
With the amount of money being put into this, they could at least modify the racks to support more PGM's like the BLU-122, 119, and 117. Maybe even some more clusters (CBU-103, CBU-104, CBU-107) for example. I'm happy with the fact that it has the ability to employ stand-off munitions though. Leaves more targeting options open, and it's STOVL ability would work perfectly against time-sensitive targets hands down.
Think about all the jobs that would be lost if we didn't go through with the contract.
Honestly, since there's no fucking way we can convince the neo-cons to go home and stop bombing people and/or not have the whole world go up in flames if the US brings is massive military complement home, might as well just build the fuckers and expand the military to deal with more threats.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809348]F-35's main advantage is its VTOL capability, which beats the Harrier's by a ton. For carrier and field operations, VTOL is invaluable, but trying to lump that feature in with everything else they wanted this aircraft to do ran the costs up way over acceptable margins. For multirole VTOL operations I hope the BA609 is at least given a chance in testing.[/QUOTE]
It isn't VTOL. It is a STOVL aircraft. Short take off, vertical landing. Only the Marine "B" variant of the F-35 has that capability. It, and the C (carrier capable for USN) variant, both sacrifice the internal cannon, range, and maneuverability to accomplish their extra roles. Meanwhile the A variant with the USAF is smaller, more maneuverable, and still retains a 20mm cannon. The B variant should be ditched entirely in favor of the A and C.
So, no, the Harrier which is a true VTOL aircraft is actually miles better at that.
[editline]13th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38809479]Helicopters are nowhere near as fast as fixed-wing aircraft and they're far more fragile. A single hit could destroy both turbines in a twin engined helicopter, or even snap off a rotor.
[/QUOTE]
True, though if you are comparing the damage of the A-10's cannon to the damage done by the smaller cannons on air supremacy aircraft, or even air to air missiles, the A-10 would come out on top. That avenger cannon can tear apart main battle tanks. There isn't an aircraft in the sky, including other A-10's, that would be reasonably likely to survive a burst from the avenger. Nothing short of a naval vessel is going to survive that thing.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;38808520]I still don't fully understand why the F-22 was cut in the first place.[/QUOTE]
F-22 was costly but there is a new design flaw due to the lack of oxygen reaching the pilot, there has been [url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/11/f-22-raptor-crash-not-likely-related-to-oxygen-problems-air-force/]reports[/url] of multiple pilots not wanting to fly it because of this reason.
[QUOTE=GunFox;38811841]
True, though if you are comparing the damage of the A-10's cannon to the damage done by the smaller cannons on air supremacy aircraft, or even air to air missiles, the A-10 would come out on top. That avenger cannon can tear apart main battle tanks. There isn't an aircraft in the sky, including other A-10's, that would be reasonably likely to survive a burst from the avenger. Nothing short of a naval vessel is going to survive that thing.[/QUOTE]
The whole reason the Avenger is great is not because of a 10mm difference between the gau-12, the fuckass muzzle velocity of 2lbs of bullet just destroys armor.
I beleive that f-35s are a inbetween aircraft its not that good at air 2 air due to its slow speed and maneuverability and ground it doesn't carry a wide variant of weapons.
In conclusion I believe there should be 4 and only 4 types of planes Support/Logistics, Air superiority,Strategic Bombers, Tactical bombers.
[editline]13th December 2012[/editline]
Also Gunfox is arm chair General
I read the report released by KPMG, F-35 won't even be bought for Canada in my opinion. Its just way to expensive in almost every aspect including maintaining it for its lifespan. The opposition is going to jump on that $45bn scare number right away. But at least we now know the current cost per aircraft is likely to be $100mn by the time we ever decide to buy one, which we probably wont.
[editline]12th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=TheTalon;38809474]45.8 Billion over 42 years on what is a Jet capable of doing every jet's role that we have, and even outright replacing a lot of them, doesn't seem that bad ...[/QUOTE]
Except it isn't. We're going to mainly use these jets for search and rescue, interception and patrolling Canada's Arctic. We won't need stealth, we could simply get a LO aircraft not a VLO aircraft and it would fit our needs waay better then a F-35 because of the better performance, just as one of our top airforce generals have said. Its way to expensive for Canada. We're a state that believes in giving our citizens all they need in return for tax dollars, typically. If anything we'll go with a 4+ gen fighter.
[QUOTE=Whitefox08;38812052]It has radar assisted gun lead[/QUOTE]
Well where's the radar? Can I get a source on that?
[QUOTE=Apache249;38812111]Well where's the radar? Can I get a source on that?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LITENING_targeting_pod[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Sniper_XR[/url]
I may have miss worded radar :v:
[QUOTE=Whitefox08;38812275][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LITENING_targeting_pod[/url]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_Sniper_XR[/url]
I may have miss worded radar :v:[/QUOTE]
Neither of those have anything to do with the gunsight.
[QUOTE=Apache249;38812281]Neither of those have anything to do with the gunsight.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]An on-gimbal inertial navigation sensor establishes line-of-sight and automatic boresighting capability.[/QUOTE]
That has nothing to do with the gun.
[QUOTE]1. Inertial Navigation Sensor – Mounting the pod INS on the gimbal
and boresighting it to the other sensors makes the sensor payload completely
isolated from any static or dynamic misalignments, which may occur during
operation. This yields accurate line-of-sight pointing and target inertial
tracking.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=45586&d=1292181010[/url]
I tip my hat to you, good day.
[QUOTE=Whitefox08;38812395]I tip my hat to you, good day.[/QUOTE]
I tip my hat right back.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
