# A-10 Worthless POS



## Imissbush

A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have


----------



## hjmick

Idiot.


----------



## Camp

Is that you Sec. Cheney?


----------



## Mr. H.

Talk to the pilots.


----------



## Ringel05

Imissbush said:


> A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have





Yup folks, proof that even morons can use a computer.....  Like we needed any more proof here on this board.......


----------



## martybegan

Ringel05 said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup folks, proof that even morons can use a computer.....  Like we needed any more proof here on this board.......
Click to expand...


How can someone hate an airplane that flings milk bottle sized shells out of a rotary cannon while making the sound of a wet fart?


----------



## whitehall

From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.


----------



## Imissbush

whitehall said:


> From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.



Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams


----------



## SmedlyButler

Imissbush said:


> A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have



You* DO NOT* want to be in the sights of the driver of this flying tank.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rGcn2XGr48]A-10 Warthog: Attack Run - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MikeK

Imissbush said:


> A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have


What do you base that opinion on?  

The only thing I know about the A-10 gunship is what I've seen in a tv documentary, which is it is used only in situations where there is minimal anti-aircraft potential but clear opportunity to render substantial assistance to ground troops.  And what I saw in that documentary in terms of its capability was impressive.  

Do you know of many, or any, examples of the A-10 being shot down or having failed in its primary mission?

I would think it isn't used in Afghanistan because our brass knows the Taliban guerillas have plenty of anti-aircraft missiles (I believe they are called _Stingers_) and they know how to use them.  The brass know this because we gave those ground-to-air missiles to the Afghani guerillas when they were called _Mujahideen_ and were fighting the Russians -- who were doing in Afghanistan what we are doing there now.


----------



## westwall

hjmick said:


> Idiot.







A reeeealy big idiot.


----------



## rockledr

I have a few trips to Afghanistan and I can tell you before the ROE was changed we used the A-10 a lot. I owe my life to some damn fine A-10s and pilots.


----------



## westwall

Imissbush said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams
Click to expand...








Yeah....right....















And on and on and on....  lots of pictures showing the destruction that the A-10's have wrought on enemy tanks.

You sir, are a moron..


----------



## jon_berzerk

MikeK said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have
> 
> 
> 
> What do you base that opinion on?
> 
> The only thing I know about the A-10 gunship is what I've seen in a tv documentary, which is it is used only in situations where there is minimal anti-aircraft potential but clear opportunity to render substantial assistance to ground troops.  And what I saw in that documentary in terms of its capability was impressive.
> 
> Do you know of many, or any, examples of the A-10 being shot down or having failed in its primary mission?
> 
> I would think it isn't used in Afghanistan because our brass knows the Taliban guerillas have plenty of anti-aircraft missiles (I believe they are called _Stingers_) and they know how to use them.  The brass know this because we gave those ground-to-air missiles to the Afghani guerillas when they were called _Mujahideen_ and were fighting the Russians -- who were doing in Afghanistan what we are doing there now.
Click to expand...


*I would think it isn't used in Afghanistan because our brass knows the Taliban guerillas have plenty of anti-aircraft missiles *

Bagram pilots save 60 Soldiers during convoy ambush
By Staff Sgt. Stephenie Wade, 455th Air Expeditionary Wing, Public Affairs / Published August 06, 2013

BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan (AFNS) --
Two A-10 Thunderbolt II pilots assigned to the 74th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, provided close-air support to 60 U.S. Soldiers July 24.

The Soldiers were part of a routine clearance patrol that was ambushed after their lead vehicle in a convoy of 12 turned over during a patrol of an Afghanistan highway. The situation forced the Soldiers to establish an overnight base while they pulled the vehicle out of a ravine. As the sun rose, the unit began to receive heavy fire from a nearby tree line. The members were pinned behind their vehicles and three of the Soldiers suffered injuries. The unit was under fire and the wounded members needed a casualty evacuation so they called for close-air support.

However, there was one problem; the ground unit didn't have a way to confirm the enemy's position. The unit did have a joint fire observer who was able to communicate an estimated location to the A-10 pilots who arrived on scene shortly after receiving the call from a local base's joint terminal air controller responsible for coordinating aerial engagements.

"I flew over to provide a show of force while my wingman was looking for gunfire below," said the flight lead of the two-ship A-10 mission. "Our goal with the show of force was to break the contact and let the enemy know we were there, but they didn't stop. I think that day the enemy knew they were going to die, so they pushed even harder and began moving closer to our ground forces."

When the enemy combatants didn't flee after the show of force, the A-10 pilots decided to deliver air-to-surface munitions to protect the friendly ground forces.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispl...ts-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx


----------



## berilgonzalvis

War only leads to mayhem and destruction.


----------



## Mojo2

Imissbush said:


> A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have



You are woefully ignorant.

It is the very best fixed wing ground support aircraft in our military's arsenal.

That's why it's service life has been so extended.

Even though there are other close air support craft there is nothing that does the job of the A-10.

It has the loitering capacity and the big gun and a low and slow ability that even its critics, who are drooling at getting A-10 budget $'s diverted to the F-35 program which is a spectacular leap of technology, admit the F-35 can't do what the Warthog does in a theater like Afghaniistan.

Those critics assume we won't ever fight in such an arena again so they are willing to finally kill the A-10.

It wouldn't be the first time military analysts have been wrong about what planes and armaments the Air Force or Navy should have.

They said missiles would make guns obsolete. So the Phantom F-4 was built without guns.

So what happened?

In Viet Nam the lack of guns made pilots and missions dependent on unreliable missile technology.

Then someone in the field jury rigged a gun pod to sling along the linear axis of the F-4 fuselage and pilots were happier and used those guns to bring down Migs over S.E. Asia that might have killed them.

Hell, they've been trying to get rid of the Warthog for years! Unbeknownst to many, lots of pilots are hardwired liberal and really care about how sexy a plane looks, as opposed to how well it functions. So, based on their prejudiced eye they found all the reason they needed to justify killing it.

That is, until we turned back Iraqi invaders from Kuwait. Then everyone realized just how lucky we were that we hadn't retired the Thunderbolt (another A-10 nickname) earlier.

For the job of taking out fortified ground targets and close air support there is nothing that can beat it!

And that has remained true in Iraq under GWB and in Afghanistan to this day.

It has been saved at least through the 2014 calendar year.

Beyond that I don't know.

But if the plane IS scrapped I suspect sometime soon afterwards they'll be in a conflict and wish the A-10 was still around to get a particularly gnarly and nasty job done at low risk to the pilot.

I'm a BIG fan of that plane and until there is something that does what it does we will just have to hope we never again have to fight in a country like Afghanistan.


----------



## Mojo2

berilgonzalvis said:


> War only leads to mayhem and destruction.



Yeah. 

So, what should we do when war is being waged ON us?


----------



## Mojo2

> *Bill Blocks Air Force from Retiring A-10 Warthog*
> 
> by KRIS OSBORN on DECEMBER 13, 2013
> 
> The bipartisan defense budget that passed through the House Thursday includes strict language mandating the Air Force not execute any plans to retire the A-10 Warthog. The legislation specifically blocks the Air Force from spending any money to divest A-10s through calendar year 2014.
> 
> Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh has said the service needs to retired older, single mission aircraft like the A-10 in order to reserve funding for newer aircraft like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is slotted to take over the A-10&#8217;s close air support role.
> 
> In service since the 70&#8217;s, the twin-engine jet aircraft is designed to provide ground troops with close air support by using its armored fuselage for protection, flying low to the ground to track and hit enemies and firing deadly 30mm rotary cannons.
> 
> Lawmakers have pushed back against any talk of the A-10&#8217;s retirement. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., blocked the nomination of the Air Force secretary, citing her concerns about Air Force&#8217;s A-10 plans and Defense Department struggles to bring the Joint Strike Fighter online.
> 
> Air Force has not formally made a decision about whether to retire the aircraft. However, Lt. Gen. Charles Davis,  Military Deputy for Air Force Acquisition, made clear that budget restrictions have forced the service to consider cutting entire programs to save money.
> 
> &#8220;Everything that we have is being effected by sequestration right now &#8211; satellites, missiles, air frames have already been cut 13 percent. Do you try to retire something so that you get rid of the entire logistics trail and the depot? You can save a lot of money. That is the discussion that is going on right now,&#8221; he said.
> 
> The potential budget deal that still needs to be approved by the Senate and signed by President Obama would reduce sequestration cuts and add $3 to $7 billion to the Air Force&#8217;s budget. However, Davis said the service would not prioritize saving the A-10 and instead listed funding more flying hours and the Joint Strike Fighter program has higher priorities.
> 
> Davis did say that technological advances such as sensors and laser-guided weaponry have made it possible for a number of aircraft, such as F-16 fighter jets, to successfully perform close air support. F-16s have regularly provided close air support in Afghanistan, service officials specified.
> 
> &#8220;F-16 does a wonderful close air support mission. You don&#8217;t need to fly slow with a lot of titanium armor with a 30-mm gun just to be able to do close air support. We&#8217;ve got B-52s and B-1s doing close air support. The weapons have changed the game,&#8221; Davis said.
> 
> Furthermore, Davis emphasized that close air support in potential future conflicts will likely require different technologies than are currently needed in Afghanistan today.
> 
> &#8220;Close air support is not hovering close with a gun anymore. That works great in a situation like Afghanistan &#8212; but if you assume that we are not going to fight that way all over the world you are going to do close air support much differently. Your ultimate close air support weapon would be something above the earth with a pinpoint accuracy laser that can pick off a person individually when they get too near our troops and do it repeatedly,&#8221; Davis added.



http://defensetech.org/2013/12/13/bill-blocks-air-force-from-retiring-a-10-warthog/


----------



## longknife

berilgonzalvis said:


> War only leads to mayhem and destruction.



Another memorized Leftey mantra.


----------



## longknife

Didn't they once claim that the B-52 was obsolete and should quickly be replaced?

At least *56 years ago.*


----------



## Imissbush

longknife said:


> Didn't they once claim that the B-52 was obsolete and should quickly be replaced?
> 
> At least *56 years ago.*



LOL, sure was, I believe the Pentagon said we needed the B-1 to replace it. That's another POS on the junk pile now.

Also, I love how the a-10 was suppose to "loiter" over the battlefield. Never, ever did that plane fulfill its mission as it was designed. Sure, I Iraq it killed sitting ducks on a highway, but a p-51 Mustang could of done that


----------



## whitehall

As usual the fat asses in the Pentagon rely on the current  stupid political agenda in order to keep the Georgetown booze flowing and the liberal babes sucking data. The A-10 would be the prime weapon in Afghanistan except that American forces in Afghanistan have been sucking wind and every Army leadership knows it.


----------



## Moonglow

The A-10 Warthog is a great tank buster.


----------



## longly

The A10 is best damn close air support weapon ever made. If the Air force doesnt want it give it to the Marines  or Army. I have some strong feeling about scrapping them.


----------



## Indofred

I took a look at recorded combat losses for the A10.
I took a look at the effectiveness as a close support aircraft.
I took a look at the losses due to mechanical faults.
I took a look at the F35's abilities in the same role against that of the A10.

Scrapping the A10 would be bloody stupid.


----------



## SayMyName

I love the Warthog. There was always a deep sense of comfort back in the old days when seeing one go into a circle pattern around your position. You knew that they could see things you couldn't and would respond with the wrath of God upon the enemy once called for help. Just something beautiful, sitting around eating a C-ration, and looking up at how effortlessly it would fly, even though it carried its own weight in ordinance and weapons.


----------



## Edgetho

rockledr said:


> I have a few trips to Afghanistan and I can tell you before the ROE was changed we used the A-10 a lot. I owe my life to some damn fine A-10s and pilots.



When I was in 'Nam, we didn't have the A-10 (of course) but we had the A-1.

A Naval Aircraft that was theoretically outdated and given to the Vietnamese Air Force.

Believe me when I tell you (I don't care either way) I called in a lot of Air Strikes in support from my position on the ground....  Super Sabres, Spooky, Huey Gunships and once, the new Cobra Gunship with the 40mm in the nose.

And nothing was as intimidating as the A-1.

Nothing.

I can only imagine the capabilities of the A-10.

As to being shot down by bad guys?

Guess what?  Any of them can be shot down.  Any of them.  Even the F-22.  But you don't expose Ground Attack Aircraft to Mach II Fighter Jets unless you're an idiot.  Which explains a lot.

If you don't have Air Supremacy or even Air Superiority, you send in some Fast Movers with the Ground Support Aircraft.

Sheesh.

I guess the Brass in the Pentagon feels the A-10 and the Apache do essentially the same job and they don't want redundant weapons systems.

They're wrong.  They're the same fucking geniuses that declared the day of the Dogfight was over when they produced the F4 without a Gun, only missiles.

Fucking Idiots.  I swear to God, I think the higher these guys go, the higher they're promoted, the stupider they get.

Most of them are theoreticians anyway with their noses stuck so far up Politicians' asses they couldn't recognize a Battlefield from a 100 feet away.

Most of them have never seen one anyway.  Except maybe in a bunker from a satellite feed.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Edgetho said:


> rockledr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a few trips to Afghanistan and I can tell you before the ROE was changed we used the A-10 a lot. I owe my life to some damn fine A-10s and pilots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I was in 'Nam, we didn't have the A-10 (of course) but we had the A-1.
> 
> A Naval Aircraft that was theoretically outdated and given to the Vietnamese Air Force.
> 
> Believe me when I tell you (I don't care either way) I called in a lot of Air Strikes in support from my position on the ground....  Super Sabres, Spooky, Huey Gunships and once, the new Cobra Gunship with the 40mm in the nose.
> 
> And nothing was as intimidating as the A-1.
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> I can only imagine the capabilities of the A-10.
> 
> As to being shot down by bad guys?
> 
> Guess what?  Any of them can be shot down.  Any of them.  Even the F-22.  But you don't expose Ground Attack Aircraft to Mach II Fighter Jets unless you're an idiot.  Which explains a lot.
> 
> If you don't have Air Supremacy or even Air Superiority, you send in some Fast Movers with the Ground Support Aircraft.
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> I guess the Brass in the Pentagon feels the A-10 and the Apache do essentially the same job and they don't want redundant weapons systems.
> 
> They're wrong.  They're the same fucking geniuses that declared the day of the Dogfight was over when they produced the F4 without a Gun, only missiles.
> 
> Fucking Idiots.  I swear to God, I think the higher these guys go, the higher they're promoted, the stupider they get.
> 
> Most of them are theoreticians anyway with their noses stuck so far up Politicians' asses they couldn't recognize a Battlefield from a 100 feet away.
> 
> Most of them have never seen one anyway.  Except maybe in a bunker from a satellite feed.
Click to expand...


speaking of Vietnam era 

back when i lived in Minnesota 

i used to on occasion rent 

a Cessna 172 xp military version 

very stable plane


----------



## MikeK

Edgetho said:


> [...]
> 
> I guess the Brass in the Pentagon feels the A-10 and the Apache do essentially the same job and they don't want redundant weapons systems.
> 
> They're wrong.  They're the same fucking geniuses that declared the day of the Dogfight was over when they produced the F4 without a Gun, only missiles.
> 
> Fucking Idiots.  I swear to God, I think the higher these guys go, the higher they're promoted, the stupider they get.[...]


That's not it.  These guys don't reach their level of success by being stupid.   Some of these politicians in uniform get their marching orders from special interests within the Military Industrial Complex.  They are _told_ what to order on the basis of what is best for the industry -- not what's best for the troops or the taxpayers.

Consider what Colin Powell did when he was _told_ to by his master, George W. Bush.  Knowing what he said was false or extremely unlikely he deliberately and calculatedly sent thousands of the troops who trusted him to die or be maimed in Iraq.


----------



## Politico

westwall said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A reeeealy big idiot.
Click to expand...


An insult to big idiots.


----------



## Edgetho

MikeK said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> I guess the Brass in the Pentagon feels the A-10 and the Apache do essentially the same job and they don't want redundant weapons systems.
> 
> They're wrong.  They're the same fucking geniuses that declared the day of the Dogfight was over when they produced the F4 without a Gun, only missiles.
> 
> Fucking Idiots.  I swear to God, I think the higher these guys go, the higher they're promoted, the stupider they get.[...]
> 
> 
> 
> That's not it.  These guys don't reach their level of success by being stupid.   Some of these politicians in uniform get their marching orders from special interests within the Military Industrial Complex.  They are _told_ what to order on the basis of what is best for the industry -- not what's best for the troops or the taxpayers.
> 
> Consider what Colin Powell did when he was _told_ to by his master, George W. Bush.  Knowing what he said was false or extremely unlikely he deliberately and calculatedly sent thousands of the troops who trusted him to die or be maimed in Iraq.
Click to expand...


Do you look under your bed for military-industrialists every evening before you say nighty-night?

You should.

And don't forget to take your cellphone into the shower with you; they know when you're most vulnerable


----------



## RoadVirus

martybegan said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup folks, proof that even morons can use a computer.....  Like we needed any more proof here on this board.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can someone hate an airplane that flings milk bottle sized shells out of a rotary cannon while making the sound of a wet fart?
Click to expand...


That's a very...._colorful_ description.

But anyway...i like the A-10. The Warthog is one mean bastard.


----------



## 1776

Shitstain....so a helo is faster than an A-10.....which has 2 jet engines? 



Imissbush said:


> A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have


----------



## 1776

The A-10 is a flying tank, its gun on the front can shoot armor piercing rounds. It can carry missiles and bombs. It is a mini Army all to itself. 

The Taliban go into hiding when A-10s swoop into an area. They know the pilots can slice them with a variety of weapons and the A-10 is relatively quiet coming towards you....you only feel the blast or the rounds in your body.


----------



## longknife

Here's another view of the Warthog &#8211; Save The A-10 Warthog And Trash The F-35 Flying Turkey! @ Aviation: Save The A-10 Warthog And Trash The F-35 Flying Turkey! « Feral Jundi

A great piece I really enjoyed reading. Makes a whole lot of sense. Especially from someone who seems to really know about military aircraft.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Imissbush said:


> A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have



Uh...

A-10: Close Air Support Wonder Weapon Or Boneyard Bound? « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Air Force Chief Says Cutting A-10 Fleet Would Save $3.7 Billion; NDAA Blocks A-10 Retirement « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Rather than listening to some know-nothing here, read what experts think.


----------



## westwall

Imissbush said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't they once claim that the B-52 was obsolete and should quickly be replaced?
> 
> At least *56 years ago.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, sure was, I believe the Pentagon said we needed the B-1 to replace it. That's another POS on the junk pile now.
> 
> Also, I love how the a-10 was suppose to "loiter" over the battlefield. Never, ever did that plane fulfill its mission as it was designed. Sure, I Iraq it killed sitting ducks on a highway, but a p-51 Mustang could of done that
Click to expand...








No, the Mustang would have suffered the very fate you think the A-10 would.  And for the record there are several A-10's that have been hit by AAA and flew safely back to base.

Once again you prove how woefully ignorant of reality you are.  Nothing new with you it seems...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Imissbush said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams
Click to expand...


 NOTHING provides better ground support then the A-10.
Shit that would drop a helo,the A-10 shrugs off like a light rain.
 You dont know shit.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

berilgonzalvis said:


> War only leads to mayhem and destruction.



  Are you sure? I swear someone told me it's all sweetness and lovin.


----------



## SteadyMercury

A-10 is an amazing aircraft that has proven useful in surprisingly varied roles compared to it's original design mission of busting up eastern-block tanks rolling into Europe.

That said, weapons and sensors have changed a lot over the decades and with PGM cost going down while accuracy goes up the way to best approach close-air-support won't always be low flying daylight gun/bombing runs like the A-10 is best at. 

People say the F-35 can't do what the A-10 does and they are correct, but that doesn't mean F-35 can't work well in a CAS mission, it would just do it differently and there would be some trade-offs. An F-35 would loiter high enough to be out of reach of gunfire and MANPADS using a far superior sensor suite and data links to other elements to compensate for the altitude difference, deploying weapons like SDB2 in support ground troops. This makes the survivabiity of the A-10 airframe a bit less relevant to the mission.

The way the A-10 works certainly has advantages, but there are also advantages to a the F-35s being higher with a much larger sensor footprint and much better nighttime capability. F-35 can also get to the target area much quicker, if you are calling in an airstrike there can be a difference if one plane can be overhead in 20 minutes and another 40 minutes.

I suspect UAVs will have a bigger and bigger role in CAS in the future anyway since nothing can touch their combination of cost, loiter time, and real-time battlefield recon capabilities. Designed form the ground up to carry weapons like SDB2 and Griffin they will have a much bigger impact than a Predator with a hellfire strapped to a wing.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Slightly off-topic but related to close air support, neato = part of Marine Corps Harvest Hawk weapon system. Called a "derringer door" it allows a pressurized KC-130J to drop precision guided griffin missiles straight down in support of marines on the ground.







Gotta love multi-mission.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Niiiiiice!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERzT8KoVY7k]MUST SEE! KC-130J "Harvest Hawk" armed with 4 AGM-114 Hellfire and 10 Griffin Missiles! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## williepete

Comparing the A-10's capabilities to a helicopter's and saying the A-10 comes up short is a bit of a stretch. Let me pick one attack helicopter, the Apache for comparison. The Apache has a respectable useful load of 1,700 pounds. The A-10 can lift 16,000 pounds of weapons on 11 external hard points. That's not including the 1350 rounds of 30mm held internally. The Apache has a 3 hour flight endurance with a max speed of 145 knots while the A-10 has an _unrefueled_ range of 800 miles at 240-300 knots. With air refueling, the A-10 is limited only by the pilot's endurance.

Helicopters are far more vulnerable to ground fire. They are slower and remain in the engagement envelope longer and are mechanically more fragile. The A-10, while slow, is faster and built to take hits. 

Bottom line:  The Apache and the A-10 are built for similar but not the same missions. Both have very strong points. Both have unique capabilities. But comparing them is comparing apples to oranges. When I flew the A-10 in Korea, the combined use of A-10s and Apaches was a lethal deterrent. The Warthog was the nine pound sledge hammer while the Apache was the surgical tool. The Warthog could go deeper while the Apache made an excellent goal keeper. Together, an amazing pair. Now the Apache will have to go it alone.    

I think the A-10 has proven itself and will be well remembered in retirement. Using fast movers to provide close air support involves certain problems. They can be overcome with practice, coordination and technology. So it will have to be.


----------



## longknife

Why the enemy hates this aircraft.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

longknife said:


> http://www.youtube.com/v/_WlPJFncWXE&hl=en&fs=1
> Why the enemy hates this aircraft.



  Can you imagine being some afghan sitting on a mountain side and seeing this shit headed your way?
  Kiss your ass goodbye and prepare to meet Allah Haji.

 Gives me goose bumps.....but in a good way.


----------



## longly

If our God in heaven loves the USA he will keep the A-10 safe somewhere that we a get to it when we need it gaining. If I remember correctly the helicopter CAS in Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan had to withdraw because of heavy enemy fire. It would have been nice if they had some A-10s.


----------



## Mushroom

Imissbush said:


> Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams



Actually, that is so wrong it is hardly worth replying to.

The "Key West Agreement" is generally considered to be the divorce decree between the Army and the Army Air Corps.  And in this and other agreements several very key requirements were placed upon the Air Force.

One of them was the *requirement* to provide for the Army a Close Air Support aircraft.  And because of this, the Air Force was still flying the WWII era A1 Skyraider.  But the plane in the last half of Vietnam was taking horrible losses, a total of 266 were shot down over Vietnam.

So because of this, the Air Force retired them and designed the A10 as a replacement.  Nothing to do with "jealousy" at all, but it was a mandate that they provide such aircraft.






As for "survivability", we have had some A10s return to base with some pretty horrific battle damage.  Maybe you should spend more time researching and less time making things up.


----------



## westwall

I found this video of what it's like to be on the receiving end of a jet strafe attack, sadly it's not an A-10 delivering the attack, but it is the only video I have seen from the targets POV.


LiveLeak.com - First Time Ever! Syrian Mig-29 Attacks Islamist Terrorists in Syria!


----------



## longly

Until there is something better that has proven itself to scrap the at A-10 is almost treasonous.  I just don&#8217;t believe that a helicopter can take same punishments that the A-10 can.


----------



## longknife

*McCain Blasts AF for Trying to Mothball the A-10*






I normally don't agree with this RINO on anything! But, this is an exception. 



> Ive yet to meet, general, an Army commander whose responsibility is with the troops on the ground, that believes a B-1 or an F-16 replaces the capability of the A-10, McCain said. If you know of someone Id be glad to meet and talk to them. Those are the ones whose judgment I rely on because theyre the ones whose people are in harms way.



Read more @ Air Force, lawmakers clash over future of A-10 again | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com


----------



## Old Rocks

The A-10, called the Maltese Cross by the Russians, is the most effective tank buster in the world. To retire this weapon without a similiar replacement is idiocy. It should be updated, made even tougher, and provide protection for our ground troops for many more decades. Like the old B-17, it can take an amazing amount of punishment, and the titanium tub around the pilot gives max protection to that warrior. 

Not glamourous like fighter planes, but equally important, and a major plus for our infantry.


----------



## Mr. H.

A-10 aint broke so why fix it?


----------



## Ringel05

MikeK said:


> Edgetho said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> I guess the Brass in the Pentagon feels the A-10 and the Apache do essentially the same job and they don't want redundant weapons systems.
> 
> They're wrong.  They're the same fucking geniuses that declared the day of the Dogfight was over when they produced the F4 without a Gun, only missiles.
> 
> Fucking Idiots.  I swear to God, I think the higher these guys go, the higher they're promoted, the stupider they get.[...]
> 
> 
> 
> That's not it.  These guys don't reach their level of success by being stupid.   Some of these politicians in uniform get their marching orders from special interests within the Military Industrial Complex.  They are _told_ what to order on the basis of what is best for the industry -- not what's best for the troops or the taxpayers.
> 
> Consider what Colin Powell did when he was _told_ to by his master, George W. Bush.  Knowing what he said was false or extremely unlikely he deliberately and calculatedly sent thousands of the troops who trusted him to die or be maimed in Iraq.
Click to expand...


It's okay folks, just some bad acid.  He's been restrained (for his own good) and it's working it's way through his system.  We can't guarantee the paranoia will disappear but we'll make the effort.


----------



## Camp

We should start producing them again. Of course, make some updates, but at the low cost, we could sell them to the east Euro former Soviet countries and flood east Euro with them. Be a good jobs program. Maybe create some two for one deals, include a modified A-1 and cut down on that big parking lot in the desert.


----------



## Mushroom

Camp said:


> We should start producing them again. Of course, make some updates, but at the low cost, we could sell them to the east Euro former Soviet countries and flood east Euro with them. Be a good jobs program. Maybe create some two for one deals, include a modified A-1 and cut down on that big parking lot in the desert.



Really?  A "big parking lot" of A-1 Skyraiders in the desert?

I could only find 18 of them myself.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1657834,-110.8600379,471m/data=!3m1!1e3


----------



## westwall

Mushroom said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should start producing them again. Of course, make some updates, but at the low cost, we could sell them to the east Euro former Soviet countries and flood east Euro with them. Be a good jobs program. Maybe create some two for one deals, include a modified A-1 and cut down on that big parking lot in the desert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  A "big parking lot" of A-1 Skyraiders in the desert?
> 
> I could only find 18 of them myself.
> 
> https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1657834,-110.8600379,471m/data=!3m1!1e3
Click to expand...








Damn....look at all those F-4's....


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> Damn....look at all those F-4's....



I have been to D-M many times over the years.  Always a fun experience.


----------



## Camp

Mushroom said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should start producing them again. Of course, make some updates, but at the low cost, we could sell them to the east Euro former Soviet countries and flood east Euro with them. Be a good jobs program. Maybe create some two for one deals, include a modified A-1 and cut down on that big parking lot in the desert.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  A "big parking lot" of A-1 Skyraiders in the desert?
> 
> I could only find 18 of them myself.
> 
> https://www.google.com/maps/@32.1657834,-110.8600379,471m/data=!3m1!1e3
Click to expand...


Sorry, I meant A 1 ABRAMS. Some modifications and they could make great tanks for the Euro's and we have a surplus. Surprised you found 18 Skyraiders. Any of them still use by any military. I know they were using Gooney Birds until  the 80's and I've been told a few are still being used in some South American militaries.
Looks like maybe a hand full of Skyraiders are flight worthy, but all of them at museums, none in operation.


----------



## williepete

Here's an old documentary some of you Warthog lovers might like.


----------



## Navy1960

Let's see if I can understand this,  the Op doesn't  like the A-10 and claims that perhaps  the AH-64 or perhaps  the AH-1 would be a good replacement for it.  Well let's consider this for a moment,  if I were to take a  Russian 23MM and hit the A-10 several times  and it keeps hitting back and  flys home, and the consider the fact the  AH-64 and the AH-1 can be brought down with small arms fire the  OP's quote is somewhat off the mark. These same kinds of comments though are the some of the logic you hear from the Air Force and the Navy who made claims about how inexpensive the F-35 was going to be and how it will b outperform anything in the air, it's pretty clear for a stealth aircraft that has trouble flying in the rain, and  cost  as much as a F-22 those claims were somewhat fabricated.  In the end you want to know about the warthog, just ask  the man on the ground what he thinks of it,  you will get a  universal love for it's hard hitting power and ability to clear an enemy and save many lives.


----------



## williepete

The A-10 is long in the tooth and will have to be replaced soon. Here is an explanation of the design philosophy that went into building the A-10. Sound principles that worked well. No need to reinvent the wheel when designing a replacement.

The Amazing A-10 Warthog Fighter Jet






-----------------------------------------------------


----------



## Mushroom

Navy1960 said:


> Let's see if I can understand this,  the Op doesn't  like the A-10 and claims that perhaps  the AH-64 or perhaps  the AH-1 would be a good replacement for it.  Well let's consider this for a moment,  if I were to take a  Russian 23MM and hit the A-10 several times  and it keeps hitting back and  flys home, and the consider the fact the  AH-64 and the AH-1 can be brought down with small arms fire the  OP's quote is somewhat off the mark.



I chalk most of this off to the kind of amateuristic things I read all the time from those who do not understand the military.

The attack helicopters have their role, but it is not the same as that of an Attack Fighter.  In fact, most today do not even know what the original role of the AH was in the first place.

In the 1950's and 1960's, the tank was one of the most expensive items in the military arsenal, short of a heavy bomber.  And the early lightly armored helicopters were one of the least expensive.  But in the US any aircraft required an officer to fly.

So the Army vastly increased it's Warrant Officer program, and rapidly developed the early anti-tank helicopters.  It was figured that they could throw away 4 helicopters in exchange for 1 tank if the Warsaw Pact ever came streaming into Central Europe.  And they could easily operate along the edge of the battle area, something fighters and bombers have a hard time doing.

But dumping entire specialized classifications of a weapon system without an equal replacement is always a recipe for disaster.  The advent of modern tanks has not eliminated the role of the tank destroyer, the advent of better machine guns did not eliminate the need for a rifleman.  Grenade launchers did not eliminate the need for light mortars or hand grenades.

In a modern battlefield, aircraft all have their areas of operation.  Helicopters and attack fighters generally operate just on the edge of the battlefield.  Helicopters on a local level normally directly supporting the units they are assigned to, fighters like the hog responding to where more help is needed.  Fighters normally operate overhead, engaging other fighters to keep them from attacking our ground forces.  Bombers try to penetrate and operate behind the enemy lines.

A lot of the problem here is that a lot of people in here with little to no comprehension of theatre wide strategy and tactics assume that the wars we have been involved in the last 15 years is how it always has been, and always will be.  It is not, fighting against such technologically inferior opponents is actually quite unusual, and it took months and years to organize our military to work effectively against them.

And if we change everything to only meet this kind of threat, then we are crippled if we have to face an enemy that is closer to our capabilities, like Russia, China, or even Brazil or India.  Each of those nations has some pretty good technology, training, and doctrine, along with a lot of other countries.

If we scrapped all of our Attack Fighters, we will then be in a world of hurt if we need them in a future conflict.  Deciding to kill them makes about as much sense to me as deciding that since the short bed and long bed pickups do anything a medium bed can do, then the manufacture of all standard medium bed pickups should be cancelled.


----------



## toastman

I believe the A 10 was mainly built fir the purpose of taking out tanks. But as we can see, the U.S isn't fighting enemies with tanks or APV's.
Having said that, the A10 is awesome (gun run!) and there's a reason it's still in service after all these years.


----------



## SFC Ollie

toastman said:


> I believe the A 10 was mainly built fir the purpose of taking out tanks. But as we can see, the U.S isn't fighting enemies with tanks or APV's.
> Having said that, the A10 is awesome (gun run!) and there's a reason it's still in service after all these years.



And that reason is that it is still friggin Awesome!


----------



## Mushroom

toastman said:


> I believe the A 10 was mainly built fir the purpose of taking out tanks. But as we can see, the U.S isn't fighting enemies with tanks or APV's.



We are not fighting enemies with tanks or APVs *now*.

That does not mean we will not be doing so again in the future.

Remember, in 1991, the Allied Coalition destroyed over 1,700 Iraqi tanks from the air.  *More then half of them* were destroyed by the A-10.



> 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.


Why The Generals Hate The A-10

And do you really think that the US will never have to fight tanks ever again?  Might as well decommission all of our troop transports, since it is unlikely we will never again do an amphibious assault.

Stop trying to compare the current conflict with historical conflicts.  That is a sure route to complete failure.


----------



## toastman

Mushroom said:


> toastman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the A 10 was mainly built fir the purpose of taking out tanks. But as we can see, the U.S isn't fighting enemies with tanks or APV's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not fighting enemies with tanks or APVs *now*.
> 
> That does not mean we will not be doing so again in the future.
> 
> Remember, in 1991, the Allied Coalition destroyed over 1,700 Iraqi tanks from the air.  *More then half of them* were destroyed by the A-10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why The Generals Hate The A-10
> 
> And do you really think that the US will never have to fight tanks ever again?  Might as well decommission all of our troop transports, since it is unlikely we will never again do an amphibious assault.
> 
> Stop trying to compare the current conflict with historical conflicts.  That is a sure route to complete failure.
Click to expand...


I'm not comparing anything. I was merely staying how he U.S has not fought armies with tanks recently as a potential reason for people wanting it extinct.
No one knows what kind if wars America will fight in the future. But if the other belligerent has tanks, you can bet the A-10 will be there.

BTW, i can think of more useless aircrafts in the U.S's arsenal.


----------



## Mushroom

toastman said:


> I'm not comparing anything. I was merely staying how he U.S has not fought armies with tanks recently as a potential reason for people wanting it extinct.
> No one knows what kind if wars America will fight in the future. But if the other belligerent has tanks, you can bet the A-10 will be there.
> 
> BTW, i can think of more useless aircrafts in the U.S's arsenal.



Honestly, I can't think of any that are "useless".

However, I can think of several that are obsolete, and need to be replaced.  A great many of our aircraft are older then the pilots that fly them.

The majority of our aircraft are now in excess of 25 years old, many of them approaching 50 years old.  And ironically, one of the newest and most effective aircraft was retired after only 25 years of service.

So what exactly do we have in service that is "useless"?


----------



## westwall

The B-2 comes to mind.  At 2 billion a pop you can have that (which can be brought down by a bird strike) or you can have a fully equipped and manned Ohio Class sub.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Expensive isn't the same as useless. 

Sure the B-2 program had huge cost overruns that combined with reduction in fleet made it outrageous in price, but the end result having an extremely low observable plane that can take off in Missouri and deliver ordinance around the world in heavily contested airspace isn't useless.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> Expensive isn't the same as useless.
> 
> Sure the B-2 program had huge cost overruns that combined with reduction in fleet made it outrageous in price, but the end result having an extremely low observable plane that can take off in Missouri and deliver ordinance around the world in heavily contested airspace isn't useless.







The B-2 is worthless.  The B-1 can do the exact same job at a fraction of the cost and by using ALCM's can deliver ordnance to multiple targets in a single sortie that the B-2 can't do.  Stealth technology is cute but it's applications are very limited.  There are so many compromises that have to be made to the aircraft to maximize the stealthiness that its overall capabilities are greatly reduced compared to conventional aircraft.

Don't get me wrong I like the F-22, a very stealthy aircraft, and I think a replacement for the F-117 is necessary (though I certainly wouldn't classify it as a fighter!) that ability to place a PGM on a pinpoint target is indeed a wonderful thing.  But a stealthy large bomber?  Give me a break.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> The B-2 is worthless.  The B-1 can do the exact same job at a fraction of the cost and by using ALCM's can deliver ordnance to multiple targets in a single sortie that the B-2 can't do.


Hah hah what? 

I'd love to hear you how a B-2 can't deliver ordinance to multiple targets in a single sortie. A B-2 can carry 16 JDAMs, 16 JSOWs, 16 JASMs, 16 nuclear bombs, or (I think) 32 CBU-97s are you seriously claiming they must all be used on one single target? 

What ordinance are you thinking the B-1 carries that makes it capable of engaging multiple targets when the B-2 cannot?



westwall said:


> Stealth technology is cute but it's applications are very limited.  There are so many compromises that have to be made to the aircraft to maximize the stealthiness that its overall capabilities are greatly reduced compared to conventional aircraft.


Everything is a tradeoff, but bottom line the B-2 carries a heavy payload for a long range and can penetrate airspace that B-52 and B-1 would be at far more risk of operating in.


----------



## SteadyMercury

All for one target per sortie...


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> All for one target per sortie...









Currently only the B-52 carries the ALCM, the B-2 may get one as the powers that be dream up yet another high cost project to squander money on.  They realized that the B-2 is really limited so now wish to upgrade its effectiveness with the cruise missile.  As far as the conventional weaponry, once again I can have 7 B-1's *with crew* for the cost of ONE of your B-2's.

So, which do you think is more effective?  ONE bomber with 50,000 pounds of ordnance or 7 with 125,000 pounds of ordnance *EACH*?



Hardpoints: six external hardpoints for 50,000 pounds (23,000 kg) of ordnance (use for weapons restricted by arms treaties[94]) and three internal bomb bays for 75,000 pounds (34,000 kg) of ordnance.
Bombs:
84× Mk-82 Air inflatable retarder (AIR) general purpose (GP) bombs[166]
81× Mk-82 low drag general purpose (LDGP) bombs[167]
84× Mk-62 Quickstrike sea mines[168]
24× Mk-84 general purpose bombs
24× Mk-65 naval mines[169]
30× CBU-87/89/CBU-97 Cluster Bomb Units (CBU)[N 2]
30× CBU-103/104/105 Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) CBUs
24× GBU-31 JDAM GPS guided bombs (Mk-84 GP or BLU-109 warhead)[N 3]
15× GBU-38 JDAM GPS guided bombs (Mk-82 GP warhead)[N 4]
48x GBU-38 JDAM (using rotary launcher mounted multiple ejector racks)[170]
48x GBU-54 LaserJDAM (using rotary launcher mounted multiple ejector racks)[170]
24× AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon (JSOW)
96× or 144× GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb GPS guided bombs[N 5] (not fielded on B-1 yet)
24× AGM-158 Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM)
24× B61 or B83 nuclear bombs (no longer carried)[169]


----------



## SteadyMercury

Okay first things first, you said the B-1 can strike multiple targets in one sortie with ALCMs which was a huge advantage over the B-2 which cannot. It seems after some googling you figured out the B-1 doesn't even carry the ALCM? That is pretty funny.

So let's settle that first, are you still standing by this about ALCMs, and in a more general sense are you standing by a claim that the B-2 cannot engage multiple targets per sortie?


> The B-1 can do the exact same job at a fraction of the cost and *by using ALCM*'s can deliver ordnance to multiple targets in a single sortie that the B-2 can't do.



I love the bonus of your post, a picture of what looks like a conventional ALCM, that which the B-1 doesn't carry.

For the record they both carry JASSM, the cruise missile most likely to be fired be either one.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> So, which do you think is more effective?  ONE bomber with 50,000 pounds of ordnance or 7 with 125,000 pounds of ordnance *EACH*?


You're confusing weapon store maxes with max total payload, but regardless bottom line for the ordinances they are carrying in most combat missions today the B-1 can carry 24 and the B-2 can carry 16, three rotary launchers on the B-1 versus two on the B-2. They aren't flying B-1Bs with shit strapped onto external hardpoints, and they aren't carpet bombing with them.

However effectiveness is more than max payload, it depends on the mission. What was the first sortie in Operation Iraqi Freedom over Baghdad? Six B-2s from Whiteman that hit 92 targets. Why B-2 and not B-1? Contested airspace, the B-2 was a more suvivable platform.

You keep talking cost cost cost and yes I know the B-2 cost too much, but again something being overpriced doesn't make it worthless. There are mission profiles where the B-2 is the best plane in the world to have, and that isn't worthless. I'm looking at this from the perspective of we have the planes, both B-1 and B-2. We aren't going back in time, they exist. In this reality world of having existing planes, a bomber that can fly stealthy and deliver a large payload at intercontinental ranges isn't worthless.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> Okay first things first, you said the B-1 can strike multiple targets in one sortie with ALCMs which was a huge advantage over the B-2 which cannot. It seems after some googling you figured out the B-1 doesn't even carry the ALCM? That is pretty funny.
> 
> So let's settle that first, are you still standing by this about ALCMs, and in a more general sense are you standing by a claim that the B-2 cannot engage multiple targets per sortie?
> 
> 
> 
> The B-1 can do the exact same job at a fraction of the cost and *by using ALCM*'s can deliver ordnance to multiple targets in a single sortie that the B-2 can't do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the bonus of your post, a picture of what looks like a conventional ALCM, that which the B-1 doesn't carry.
> 
> For the record they both carry JASSM, the cruise missile most likely to be fired be either one.
Click to expand...






Yes, I misspoke.  The B-52 is currently the only one that can launch the ALCM (the nuclear one).  The B1 has the ability but they haven't cleared it to do so yet.  Yes the B2 can drop lots of bombs.  Just not as many as the B1 or B-52 for that matter.  I was referring to the nuclear option where the B-52 still reigns supreme thanks to the ALCM.  It can hit multiple targets with nukes that the B1 and B2 can't.

I am a bit un focused as I am doing three things simultaneously so am not able to give this very much attention.  I will be on later and can give more attention to the subject at that time.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, which do you think is more effective?  ONE bomber with 50,000 pounds of ordnance or 7 with 125,000 pounds of ordnance *EACH*?
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing weapon store maxes with max total payload, but regardless bottom line for the ordinances they are carrying in most combat missions today the B-1 can carry 24 and the B-2 can carry 16, three rotary launchers on the B-1 versus two on the B-2. They aren't flying B-1Bs with shit strapped onto external hardpoints, and they aren't carpet bombing with them.
> 
> However effectiveness is more than max payload, it depends on the mission. What was the first sortie in Operation Iraqi Freedom over Baghdad? Six B-2s from Whiteman that hit 92 targets. Why B-2 and not B-1? Contested airspace, the B-2 was a more suvivable platform.
> 
> You keep talking cost cost cost and yes I know the B-2 cost too much, but again something being overpriced doesn't make it worthless. There are mission profiles where the B-2 is the best plane in the world to have, and that isn't worthless. I'm looking at this from the perspective of we have the planes, both B-1 and B-2. We aren't going back in time, they exist. In this reality world of having existing planes, a bomber that can fly stealthy and deliver a large payload at intercontinental ranges isn't worthless.
Click to expand...







That was done purely for propaganda purposes.  The first mission in Desert Storm was the Apache Hellfire strike that took out the radars that allowed the F-117's to pass over the frontier undetected.  The most efficient strikes were probably those fired by the Missouri.  The object is getting the most bang for your buck and the B2 is so bloody expensive that there are MANY other platforms that can do the same basic jobs for a fraction of the cost.

That's the point.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Yes, I misspoke.  The B-52 is currently the only one that can launch the ALCM (the nuclear one).  The B1 has the ability but they haven't cleared it to do so yet.  Yes the B2 can drop lots of bombs.  Just not as many as the B1 or B-52 for that matter.  I was referring to the nuclear option where the B-52 still reigns supreme thanks to the ALCM.  It can hit multiple targets with nukes that the B1 and B2 can't.


So the first argument in your opinion that the B-2 is "worthless" is based on whether it can carry a standoff nuclear weapons? 

Come on dude, that is a serious reach.

Either way you are again incorrect, the B-2 was designed to hit multiple targets with nuclear weapons.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> That was done purely for propaganda purposes.  The first mission in Desert Storm was the Apache Hellfire strike that took out the radars that allowed the F-117's to pass over the frontier undetected.
> That's the point.


No, it was done because the B-2 was the best bomber for the mission. The Apache/F-117 operations you were talking about were in Gulf War I in 1991, B-2 were first to hit in Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

But since you bring up the F-117, why would they use those instead of F-16/F-15/F-18 that carry larger payload? Think about that, and how it relates to your claims the B-2 is worthless because of payload comparisons to B-1s.



> The object is getting the most bang for your buck


Actually no, the object is to accomplish a mission without loss of pilot or equipment and the cost of the B-2 doesn't make it worthless.


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> The B-2 comes to mind.  At 2 billion a pop you can have that (which can be brought down by a bird strike) or you can have a fully equipped and manned Ohio Class sub.



Uhhh, to bad they are less then half that much though, only around $700 million.

Plus the Ohio class is actually a 1970's era boat.  Estimates of a replacement are actually at around $6 billion each.

SSBN-X Future Follow-on Submarine

Nice fail though, nice fail.



westwall said:


> Currently only the B-52 carries the ALCM, the B-2 may get one as the powers that be dream up yet another high cost project to squander money on.



And once again, you fail to grasp what it actually is you are talking about.

Why on earth would a Stealth Bomber even need an ALCM (Air-Launched Cruise Missile).  The very idea of such a weapon was to increase the survivability of our bombers by allowing them to have a "shoot and scoot" capability.  Move in close to the target, fire the missile and run away.  This way their survivability goes way up by not having to actually enter enemy airspace.

Something the Stealth achieves through a different technique.

And think about it.  A stealth aircraft works by reducing RADAR and heat signatures.  Cruise missiles are not stealthy, and the bomber might as well hang out a giant sign in flashing neon screaming "HEY, HERE I AM!  AND I JUST SHOT SOMETHING AT YOU!"

Oh, and finally, we do not use "standard cruise missiles" on our B-1 bombers.  The US air launched cruise missile, the AGM-86 is to long to fit in a B-1.  They can only be launched from the B-52.

Know your weapons, know your weapons.  I find it really rather funny that you keep going on and on about ALCMs from a B-1, while the only ALCM they can even carry is the relatively new AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), which is non-nuclear, and intended to take out air defense, air bases and C&C sites.

Oh, and has only been out for 5 years.

Research, do some.  Weapons you want to talk about, know them.

Simply making things up as you go along is the most sure way to get busted by us who actually know what we are talking about, and know how to do research.


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> That was done purely for propaganda purposes.  The first mission in Desert Storm was the Apache Hellfire strike that took out the radars that allowed the F-117's to pass over the frontier undetected.  The most efficient strikes were probably those fired by the Missouri.  The object is getting the most bang for your buck and the B2 is so bloody expensive that there are MANY other platforms that can do the same basic jobs for a fraction of the cost.
> 
> That's the point.



First of all, the F-117's did not "pass over the frontier undetected".  I say this many times, but will say it yet again.

*Stealth* does not mean *Invisible*.

The only invisible jet in the world is flown by Wonder Woman, not the US Air Force.  Invisible aircraft do not exist, can not exist, and will never exist.  The idea of Stealth is to reduce the RADAR cross section, it is impossible to eliminate it.

The RADAR sites taken out were the main Iraqi Air Defense sites in the country.  And it was not to prevent Baghdad from knowing they were coming, but to prevent their precise location from being known.  While largely safe from ground fire, the Nighthawk is horribly vulnerable to other aircraft, having absolutely zero air to air capability.

So it was not to keep Iraq from knowing they were coming, it was to prevent Iraq from vectoring fighters in on them.

And it was also because the F-117s were not the only aircraft in the air at the time.  There were multiple attacks and engagements that night between Iraq and Coalition forces.  Including the one that killed Captain Scott Speicher.

In total, 2,775 sorties were flown on the first day of the air war.  So of course the very first priority is to seriously degrade their capability to hinder coalition air dominance.

And I bet you can't even tell us why the Apache was the perfect weapon platform for that mission.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Mushroom said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that is so wrong it is hardly worth replying to.
> 
> The "Key West Agreement" is generally considered to be the divorce decree between the Army and the Army Air Corps.  And in this and other agreements several very key requirements were placed upon the Air Force.
> 
> One of them was the *requirement* to provide for the Army a Close Air Support aircraft.  And because of this, the Air Force was still flying the WWII era A1 Skyraider.  But the plane in the last half of Vietnam was taking horrible losses, a total of 266 were shot down over Vietnam.
> 
> So because of this, the Air Force retired them and designed the A10 as a replacement.  Nothing to do with "jealousy" at all, but it was a mandate that they provide such aircraft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for "survivability", we have had some A10s return to base with some pretty horrific battle damage.  Maybe you should spend more time researching and less time making things up.
Click to expand...


Didn't at least one come back from a mission to Kuwait having gained about three dozen 57mm hits and having lost an entire engine?


----------



## Mushroom

Jarlaxle said:


> Didn't at least one come back from a mission to Kuwait having gained about three dozen 57mm hits and having lost an entire engine?













We have had warthogs return with so much battle damage and land safely that it amazes the groundcrew that they were even able to continue flying.  This aircraft is designed to take a tremendous amount of damage, and continue to fly.

And there is no way any other aircraft in the inventory could do what the A-10 did in this engagement.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispl...ts-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx


----------



## HenryBHough

Why is it that liberals who like to whine about American troops being slaughtered are so against the airplane that is world's best at minimizing those American deaths?

Gee, do they hate Americans THAT much?


----------



## Mushroom

HenryBHough said:


> Why is it that liberals who like to whine about American troops being slaughtered are so against the airplane that is world's best at minimizing those American deaths?
> 
> Gee, do they hate Americans THAT much?



To be fair, it is not all Liberals.  Nor is it even all Leftists.

I have seen quite a few of the Far-Right Loosertarian ilk that share the same general beliefs.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I misspoke.  The B-52 is currently the only one that can launch the ALCM (the nuclear one).  The B1 has the ability but they haven't cleared it to do so yet.  Yes the B2 can drop lots of bombs.  Just not as many as the B1 or B-52 for that matter.  I was referring to the nuclear option where the B-52 still reigns supreme thanks to the ALCM.  It can hit multiple targets with nukes that the B1 and B2 can't.
> 
> 
> 
> So the first argument in your opinion that the B-2 is "worthless" is based on whether it can carry a standoff nuclear weapons?
> 
> Come on dude, that is a serious reach.
> 
> Either way you are again incorrect, the B-2 was designed to hit multiple targets with nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...








No, it is worthless because I can have 7 B-1's for the price of one B-2.  That means that no matter what is happening I can be assured of having at least FOUR B-1's available in the event of need.  The B-2 is not able to fly in certain weather conditions such as rain due to its stealth technology, the operating cost is double that of the B-1 (some estimates are triple) serviceability is low.

The vast majority of the targets it will be used against have no ability to hit it period much less with a radar guided missile.  Those countries that DO have a capability to hit it can be neutralized by the EA-18 Growler so allowing conventional aircraft to strike targets that would otherwise be tasked to the B-2.

Put another way, for the cost of one B-2 I can have an entire AIRFORCE of A-10's! or roughly 200 of them!  So, you can hit 50 or so targets and I can hit roughly 2000.  In a game of numbers the B-2 loses every single time.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was done purely for propaganda purposes.  The first mission in Desert Storm was the Apache Hellfire strike that took out the radars that allowed the F-117's to pass over the frontier undetected.
> That's the point.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was done because the B-2 was the best bomber for the mission. The Apache/F-117 operations you were talking about were in Gulf War I in 1991, B-2 were first to hit in Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
> 
> But since you bring up the F-117, why would they use those instead of F-16/F-15/F-18 that carry larger payload? Think about that, and how it relates to your claims the B-2 is worthless because of payload comparisons to B-1s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The object is getting the most bang for your buck
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually no, the object is to accomplish a mission without loss of pilot or equipment and the cost of the B-2 doesn't make it worthless.
Click to expand...






In certain situations the stealthy aircraft is a very good thing.  The F-22 is a brilliant airframe.  It can sneak up on an enemy and shoot him down.  The F-117 was adept at penetrating into a hot airspace to hit a single high value target.... very useful.  I like that.  It was expensive but it did that specific job very well.

The uses for the B-2 are so limited that it truly IS a useless aircraft.  There is no job that it can do that can't be done by others at a fraction of the cost.


----------



## westwall

Mushroom said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The B-2 comes to mind.  At 2 billion a pop you can have that (which can be brought down by a bird strike) or you can have a fully equipped and manned Ohio Class sub.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, to bad they are less then half that much though, only around $700 million.
> 
> Plus the Ohio class is actually a 1970's era boat.  Estimates of a replacement are actually at around $6 billion each.
> 
> SSBN-X Future Follow-on Submarine
> 
> Nice fail though, nice fail.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Currently only the B-52 carries the ALCM, the B-2 may get one as the powers that be dream up yet another high cost project to squander money on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again, you fail to grasp what it actually is you are talking about.
> 
> Why on earth would a Stealth Bomber even need an ALCM (Air-Launched Cruise Missile).  The very idea of such a weapon was to increase the survivability of our bombers by allowing them to have a "shoot and scoot" capability.  Move in close to the target, fire the missile and run away.  This way their survivability goes way up by not having to actually enter enemy airspace.
> 
> Something the Stealth achieves through a different technique.
> 
> And think about it.  A stealth aircraft works by reducing RADAR and heat signatures.  Cruise missiles are not stealthy, and the bomber might as well hang out a giant sign in flashing neon screaming "HEY, HERE I AM!  AND I JUST SHOT SOMETHING AT YOU!"
> 
> Oh, and finally, we do not use "standard cruise missiles" on our B-1 bombers.  The US air launched cruise missile, the AGM-86 is to long to fit in a B-1.  They can only be launched from the B-52.
> 
> Know your weapons, know your weapons.  I find it really rather funny that you keep going on and on about ALCMs from a B-1, while the only ALCM they can even carry is the relatively new AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), which is non-nuclear, and intended to take out air defense, air bases and C&C sites.
> 
> Oh, and has only been out for 5 years.
> 
> Research, do some.  Weapons you want to talk about, know them.
> 
> Simply making things up as you go along is the most sure way to get busted by us who actually know what we are talking about, and know how to do research.
Click to expand...







Because with a ALCM you can launch 12 missiles and hit 12 different targets PLUS the primary that the bomber hits.  That's why.  In a nuclear war you get one pass.  Better make it the most devastating you possibly can.


----------



## westwall

Mushroom said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was done purely for propaganda purposes.  The first mission in Desert Storm was the Apache Hellfire strike that took out the radars that allowed the F-117's to pass over the frontier undetected.  The most efficient strikes were probably those fired by the Missouri.  The object is getting the most bang for your buck and the B2 is so bloody expensive that there are MANY other platforms that can do the same basic jobs for a fraction of the cost.
> 
> That's the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the F-117's did not "pass over the frontier undetected".  I say this many times, but will say it yet again.
> 
> *Stealth* does not mean *Invisible*.
> 
> The only invisible jet in the world is flown by Wonder Woman, not the US Air Force.  Invisible aircraft do not exist, can not exist, and will never exist.  The idea of Stealth is to reduce the RADAR cross section, it is impossible to eliminate it.
> 
> The RADAR sites taken out were the main Iraqi Air Defense sites in the country.  And it was not to prevent Baghdad from knowing they were coming, but to prevent their precise location from being known.  While largely safe from ground fire, the Nighthawk is horribly vulnerable to other aircraft, having absolutely zero air to air capability.
> 
> So it was not to keep Iraq from knowing they were coming, it was to prevent Iraq from vectoring fighters in on them.
> 
> And it was also because the F-117s were not the only aircraft in the air at the time.  There were multiple attacks and engagements that night between Iraq and Coalition forces.  Including the one that killed Captain Scott Speicher.
> 
> In total, 2,775 sorties were flown on the first day of the air war.  So of course the very first priority is to seriously degrade their capability to hinder coalition air dominance.
> 
> And I bet you can't even tell us why the Apache was the perfect weapon platform for that mission.
Click to expand...







Yes, I know that.  I'm being very general due to time constraints.  This is fun BTW!  I haven't had a meaningful discussion on these matters for a long time and yes I am not exactly current, but I will catch up fast!


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> Because with a ALCM you can launch 12 missiles and hit 12 different targets PLUS the primary that the bomber hits.  That's why.  In a nuclear war you get one pass.  Better make it the most devastating you possibly can.



And you completely ignore the fact that nuclear cruise missiles can't fit in the B-1.



westwall said:


> Yes, I know that.  I'm being very general due to time constraints.  This is fun BTW!  I haven't had a meaningful discussion on these matters for a long time and yes I am not exactly current, but I will catch up fast!



The thing is though, I am current.  And in many ways we are dealing with what I did in the Army from 2007-2012, Air Defense.


----------



## westwall

Mushroom said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because with a ALCM you can launch 12 missiles and hit 12 different targets PLUS the primary that the bomber hits.  That's why.  In a nuclear war you get one pass.  Better make it the most devastating you possibly can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you completely ignore the fact that nuclear cruise missiles can't fit in the B-1.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know that.  I'm being very general due to time constraints.  This is fun BTW!  I haven't had a meaningful discussion on these matters for a long time and yes I am not exactly current, but I will catch up fast!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is though, I am current.  And in many ways we are dealing with what I did in the Army from 2007-2012, Air Defense.
Click to expand...





Ok.  Tell me who out in the world can bring down a B-1.


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> Ok.  Tell me who out in the world can bring down a B-1.



Damned near anybody.  It is not a magical aircraft for goodness sakes!  The militaries of a good many nations can take them down, Russia, China, most of Europe, Taiwan, England, France, Germany, Israel, even Japan could easily take one out.

This is why we try to only use them away from enemy forces that are a threat, or once air defenses have been taken out (they were not used in Iraq until Iraq's surface to air and air to air assets had largely been destroyed).

You seem to be seriously underestimating the capabilities of other nations around the world.

Hell, have you forgotten that Serbian forces shot down an F-117 with what is essentially a 40 year old missile system in 1999?

*Nothing* in our current military inventory is safe from harm.  The closest I can think of out of all of our hardware in the last 25 years that was largely impossible to destroy were our Battleships.  And the last of those was retired over 20 years ago.


----------



## westwall

Mushroom said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Tell me who out in the world can bring down a B-1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damned near anybody.  It is not a magical aircraft for goodness sakes!  The militaries of a good many nations can take them down, Russia, China, most of Europe, Taiwan, England, France, Germany, Israel, even Japan could easily take one out.
> 
> This is why we try to only use them away from enemy forces that are a threat, or once air defenses have been taken out (they were not used in Iraq until Iraq's surface to air and air to air assets had largely been destroyed).
> 
> You seem to be seriously underestimating the capabilities of other nations around the world.
> 
> Hell, have you forgotten that Serbian forces shot down an F-117 with what is essentially a 40 year old missile system in 1999?
> 
> *Nothing* in our current military inventory is safe from harm.  The closest I can think of out of all of our hardware in the last 25 years that was largely impossible to destroy were our Battleships.  And the last of those was retired over 20 years ago.
Click to expand...








  I see a lot of Patriot users there!  France is still fielding the Crotale and Mistral IIRC and there is virtually no way they could intercept a B-1.  The Germans are still using the Roland so that's not a worry, the new LFKNG (I believe is what it is called) will probably give them the capability but currently they haven't a prayer either.

The Swedes have the RBS 70 which is a MANPADS so unless the B-1 is coming in for a landing can just flat out run it.

The Brits have the Rapier which was excellent in its day but is now quite dated.  Same goes for the Blowpipe (though It CAN bring down the B-2).  The RN though has some excellent SAMS, the Seawolf, if the B-1 is low, will take it out no question; and the Sea Dart has a chance at mid altitude.  High altitude though and they are safe.


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> I see a lot of Patriot users there!  France is still fielding the Crotale and Mistral IIRC and there is virtually no way they could intercept a B-1.  The Germans are still using the Roland so that's not a worry, the new LFKNG (I believe is what it is called) will probably give them the capability but currently they haven't a prayer either.



Uhhh, Germany uses the PATRIOT also.  And it is capable of engaging a B-1.

And what on earth makes you think I am talking about surface to air missiles?  These are static emplacements, largely intended to defend fixed assets.  Not go bounding about a country to engage incoming attacks.

Shooting down bombers like this is the job of Air Intercept and Air Superiority fighters.

The MiG-31, the Su-27, the F-15, the Tornado, the J-8, the Typhoon, the Su-35, the J-11, there are literally dozens of aircraft that would pose a serious threat to the B-1.

Not to mention the surface to air capability of any naval assets they might have to fly over.

You really need to think with a broader mind, and not get such a case of tunnel vision my friend.


----------



## westwall

Mushroom said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see a lot of Patriot users there!  France is still fielding the Crotale and Mistral IIRC and there is virtually no way they could intercept a B-1.  The Germans are still using the Roland so that's not a worry, the new LFKNG (I believe is what it is called) will probably give them the capability but currently they haven't a prayer either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhhh, Germany uses the PATRIOT also.  And it is capable of engaging a B-1.
> 
> And what on earth makes you think I am talking about surface to air missiles?  These are static emplacements, largely intended to defend fixed assets.  Not go bounding about a country to engage incoming attacks.
> 
> Shooting down bombers like this is the job of Air Intercept and Air Superiority fighters.
> 
> The MiG-31, the Su-27, the F-15, the Tornado, the J-8, the Typhoon, the Su-35, the J-11, there are literally dozens of aircraft that would pose a serious threat to the B-1.
> 
> Not to mention the surface to air capability of any naval assets they might have to fly over.
> 
> You really need to think with a broader mind, and not get such a case of tunnel vision my friend.
Click to expand...






I DID mention the Patriot did I not?  I then continued on with their indigenous weapons systems.  I then did also mention the naval issues and yes, the air superiority fighters out there are the real threat.  There is no doubt about that.  That's why the F-22 is supposed to take them out first.  That is after all its job. 

And yes, in some ways I DO have tunnel vision.  I like things that WORK.  The B-2 can't fly when it rains.  That's kind of a major hindrance don't you think?  The aircraft is SO expensive that the brass will not commit it to a serious threat arena in the first place so once again its usefulness is gone.


----------



## SteadyMercury

HenryBHough said:


> Why is it that liberals who like to whine about American troops being slaughtered are so against the airplane that is world's best at minimizing those American deaths?
> 
> Gee, do they hate Americans THAT much?


This is the military forum. Aren't there enough political partisan retard forums for you to go spin everything into an attack an opposing ideology? Go play.


----------



## Geaux4it

Imissbush said:


> A slow moving target created to take a lot of hits? Never used in its primary mission and probably would not have done nearly as well as heliocopters could have



Go back to your FS2000 

-Geaux


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> No, it is worthless because I can have 7 B-1's for the price of one B-2.  That means that no matter what is happening I can be assured of having at least FOUR B-1's available in the event of need.  The B-2 is not able to fly in certain weather conditions such as rain due to its stealth technology, the operating cost is double that of the B-1 (some estimates are triple) serviceability is low.


We have B-2s. We have B-1s. So again your point about initial cost is completely irrelevant in whether the plane is worthless, and the bullshit about it not being able to fly in the rain is a myth dispelled in the 90s.




westwall said:


> The vast majority of the targets it will be used against have no ability to hit it period much less with a radar guided missile.  Those countries that DO have a capability to hit it can be neutralized by the EA-18 Growler so allowing conventional aircraft to strike targets that would otherwise be tasked to the B-2.


They were the first over Baghdad because lots of radar guided missiles, they were used in Kosovo for certain missions (like F-117) because of radar guided missiles. They can take off from Missouri and hit any target in the world, which isn't something you can guarantee SEAD support on.



westwall said:


> Put another way, for the cost of one B-2 I can have an entire AIRFORCE of A-10's! or roughly 200 of them!  So, you can hit 50 or so targets and I can hit roughly 2000.  In a game of numbers the B-2 loses every single time.


For 200th time, we have B-2s. You can't trade them in, we are discussing whether they are worthless which initial cost has no bearing.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> In certain situations the stealthy aircraft is a very good thing.  The F-22 is a brilliant airframe.  It can sneak up on an enemy and shoot him down.  The F-117 was adept at penetrating into a hot airspace to hit a single high value target.... very useful.  I like that.  It was expensive but it did that specific job very well.
> 
> The uses for the B-2 are so limited that it truly IS a useless aircraft.  There is no job that it can do that can't be done by others at a fraction of the cost.


So you are now clutching to the argument that there are certain missions a F-117 was useful for because of stealth (bombing) since other non-stealthy planes like F-16 couldn't do, but there are no missions the B-2 can do (bombing in defended airspace) since other non-stealthy planes like B-1 and B-52 can. 

That makes no sense. Either there are strike missions where a stealthy plane is best, or there aren't.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Because with a ALCM you can launch 12 missiles and hit 12 different targets PLUS the primary that the bomber hits.  That's why.  In a nuclear war you get one pass.  Better make it the most devastating you possibly can.


B-2 is designed to hit multiple targets with nuclear weapons, the B-52 is designed to hit multiple targets with nuclear weapons. The "primary the bomber hits" isn't any different, B-52H has an internal rotary launcher carrying more ALCMs, same as on the wing hardpoints.

The B-52 cannot easily penetrate modern air defenses around high value targets so it relies on standoff range weapons, the B-2 can penetrate those defenses so it can use gravity weapons.

There are advantages to cruise missiles (obviously standoff range) but there are advantages to gravity weapons as well, one being payload. ALCM carries a W-80 warhead with a maximum yield of 150kt, but the US have gravity bombs in the inventory like B-82 with much higher yields up to 1.2mt.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Ok.  Tell me who out in the world can bring down a B-1.


The obvious answers, related to current world security threats, would be Russia and China. There are a host of other third world countries that have purchased advanced SAM systems as well.

I can't believe you think a large non-stealthy mach 1.2 bomber is impervious to modern air defense systems.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> That's why the F-22 is supposed to take them out first.  That is after all its job.


So now we're back to you saying there is nothing the B-2 can do that the B-1 cannot, but are again adding in requirements for additional aircraft for the B-1 mission like F-22 air superiority assets and SEAD growlers.

Those assets are not always available or capable of where we need to hit, when we need to hit it. Again, a B-2 can take off from continental US and hit a target anywhere in the world, you can't always assume there is a carrier within range of that same target or a base with F-22s.

You are essentially proven our argument, the B-2 can do things the B-1 cannot. You have to add in other planes created a far more complex, failure prone, and yes expensive (how much does a carrier or air base cost?) to make your B-1 scenario work.



westwall said:


> And yes, in some ways I DO have tunnel vision.  I like things that WORK.  The B-2 can't fly when it rains.  That's kind of a major hindrance don't you think?


Myth, I can't believe anyone still believes this shit and you sometimes even see people claiming same about F-22. Birds and heavy weather are more of a maintenance issue for B-2 than other planes, but neither prevents it from flying or going into combat.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Mushroom said:


> The thing is though, I am current.  And in many ways we are dealing with what I did in the Army from 2007-2012, Air Defense.


I was USSTRATCOM so was once pretty solid on most things related to US bombers, obviously moreso in strategic roles than tactical.

Not as current anymore but most of what we're talking about related to strategic roles of US bombers hasn't changed much. Biggest change since I was in is at that time we were undergoing transition from ALCM to ACM for the BUFFs, I would have guessed that by now we'd be all ACM for nuclear mission and most ALCMs converted to conventional version. No more ACM though, fell prey to reduction treaties and performance issues that weren't resolved by the time the ax had to pick a platform.


----------



## SteadyMercury

The new 30k lb bunker buster...

Massive Ordnance Penetrator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> It is intended that the bomb will be deployed on the B-2 bomber, and will be guided by the use of GPS. Northrop Grumman announced a $2.5-million stealth-bomber refit contract on 19 July 2007. Each of the U.S. Air Force's B-2s is to be able to carry two 14-ton MOPs



Only planned for the B-2. Why? Because what they'd hit with it will likely be a high value target well defended against air strikes, and the B-2 would be a better platform for that scenario.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Interesting = 

Welcome - Defense One


> While the Air Force is expected to soon issue a request for proposals for its long-range strike bomber, a July 2 Congressional Research Service report made public Tuesday suggests that the service has already developed the aircraft through its classified budget.
> 
> The CRS report, obtained and posted online by Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists&#8217; Project on Government Secrecy, said the projected Air Force budget for the Long Range Strike Bomber jumps more than tenfold, from $258.7 million in 2013 to $3.5 billion in 2019, indicating the program may already be headed for production.
> 
> &#8220;Aviation analysts and industry officials confirm CRS&#8217;s assessment that this funding stream resembles a production program more than a typical development profile. This may indicate that significant LRS-B development has already been completed, presumably in classified budgets,&#8221; the report said.


----------



## HenryBHough

The Warthog, with all its warts, cannot compare with the *incredible failure* that's called "F35".  The wonderful crown in The Pentagon's Crown that was supposed to be shown off at the recent Farnborough Air Show - but failed to appear.  Due to yet another disgrace.


----------



## toastman

HenryBHough said:


> The Warthog, with all its warts, cannot compare with the *incredible failure* that's called "F35".  The wonderful crown in The Pentagon's Crown that was supposed to be shown off at the recent Farnborough Air Show - but failed to appear.  Due to yet another disgrace.



The F-35 was supposed to replace the A-10.

BTW, what happened with the F-35 that it is deemed a failure, besides the cost?


----------



## HenryBHough

The F-35 started out as a good idea but then each of the services started making unique demands for specialization. Result was a "Swiss Army Knife" sort of airplane that might be able to do lots of things but NONE of them well.

The major impact came from the Marine Corps demand that it be made capable of vertical takeoff which added incredibly to weight and complexity, compromised the already limited stealth capability it once had.

Fuel consumption is outrageously high leading to short missions or frequent refueling requirements.

The Farnborough disgrace was occasioned by an unexplained engine fire that had grounded the few existing F-35s indefinitely:

F35 No-Show Lets Airbus Dominate Farnborough Airshow - Fortune


----------



## Jarlaxle

Mushroom said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't at least one come back from a mission to Kuwait having gained about three dozen 57mm hits and having lost an entire engine?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have had warthogs return with so much battle damage and land safely that it amazes the groundcrew that they were even able to continue flying.  This aircraft is designed to take a tremendous amount of damage, and continue to fly.
> 
> And there is no way any other aircraft in the inventory could do what the A-10 did in this engagement.
> 
> http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispl...ts-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx
Click to expand...


No, I mean the engine was MISSING--as in, 57mm hits had actually TORN THE WHOLE DAMN THING OFF.


----------



## Jarlaxle

westwall said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.  Tell me who out in the world can bring down a B-1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damned near anybody.  It is not a magical aircraft for goodness sakes!  The militaries of a good many nations can take them down, Russia, China, most of Europe, Taiwan, England, France, Germany, Israel, even Japan could easily take one out.
> 
> This is why we try to only use them away from enemy forces that are a threat, or once air defenses have been taken out (they were not used in Iraq until Iraq's surface to air and air to air assets had largely been destroyed).
> 
> You seem to be seriously underestimating the capabilities of other nations around the world.
> 
> Hell, have you forgotten that Serbian forces shot down an F-117 with what is essentially a 40 year old missile system in 1999?
> 
> *Nothing* in our current military inventory is safe from harm.  The closest I can think of out of all of our hardware in the last 25 years that was largely impossible to destroy were our Battleships.  And the last of those was retired over 20 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a lot of Patriot users there!  France is still fielding the Crotale and Mistral IIRC and there is virtually no way they could intercept a B-1.  The Germans are still using the Roland so that's not a worry, the new LFKNG (I believe is what it is called) will probably give them the capability but currently they haven't a prayer either.
> 
> The Swedes have the RBS 70 which is a MANPADS so unless the B-1 is coming in for a landing can just flat out run it.
> 
> The Brits have the Rapier which was excellent in its day but is now quite dated.  Same goes for the Blowpipe (though It CAN bring down the B-2).  The RN though has some excellent SAMS, the Seawolf, if the B-1 is low, will take it out no question; and the Sea Dart has a chance at mid altitude.  High altitude though and they are safe.
Click to expand...


Upgrade the electronics in it...and I see no reason an SA-2 Guideline couldn't take down a Lancer.  Mach 3.5, can touch 80,000', and the huge warhead means it doesn't NEED to hit.


----------



## Sallow

I worked for a guy who was a Marine Pilot and he flew an A10.

He freakin loved it.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is worthless because I can have 7 B-1's for the price of one B-2.  That means that no matter what is happening I can be assured of having at least FOUR B-1's available in the event of need.  The B-2 is not able to fly in certain weather conditions such as rain due to its stealth technology, the operating cost is double that of the B-1 (some estimates are triple) serviceability is low.
> 
> 
> 
> We have B-2s. We have B-1s. So again your point about initial cost is completely irrelevant in whether the plane is worthless, and the bullshit about it not being able to fly in the rain is a myth dispelled in the 90s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of the targets it will be used against have no ability to hit it period much less with a radar guided missile.  Those countries that DO have a capability to hit it can be neutralized by the EA-18 Growler so allowing conventional aircraft to strike targets that would otherwise be tasked to the B-2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were the first over Baghdad because lots of radar guided missiles, they were used in Kosovo for certain missions (like F-117) because of radar guided missiles. They can take off from Missouri and hit any target in the world, which isn't something you can guarantee SEAD support on.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put another way, for the cost of one B-2 I can have an entire AIRFORCE of A-10's! or roughly 200 of them!  So, you can hit 50 or so targets and I can hit roughly 2000.  In a game of numbers the B-2 loses every single time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For 200th time, we have B-2s. You can't trade them in, we are discussing whether they are worthless which initial cost has no bearing.
Click to expand...







Yes, they are worthless.  They cost more than any other aircraft to operate, are less reliable than most, can't fly in the rain, and are so expensive that the brass won't risk them in any meaningful war.  They would not send them in to strike targets in Russia for instance because they would almost certainly get shot down.

As far as striking anywhere in the world, so can the B-52 and the B-1.  Hell the F-15 Strike Eagle can too.  It's only limit is the pilots endurance.


----------



## westwall

SteadyMercury said:


> Interesting =
> 
> Welcome - Defense One
> 
> 
> 
> While the Air Force is expected to soon issue a request for proposals for its long-range strike bomber, a July 2 Congressional Research Service report made public Tuesday suggests that the service has already developed the aircraft through its classified budget.
> 
> The CRS report, obtained and posted online by Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said the projected Air Force budget for the Long Range Strike Bomber jumps more than tenfold, from $258.7 million in 2013 to $3.5 billion in 2019, indicating the program may already be headed for production.
> 
> Aviation analysts and industry officials confirm CRSs assessment that this funding stream resembles a production program more than a typical development profile. This may indicate that significant LRS-B development has already been completed, presumably in classified budgets, the report said.
Click to expand...







What?  The B-2 is ALREADY being replaced?


----------



## westwall

Jarlaxle said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damned near anybody.  It is not a magical aircraft for goodness sakes!  The militaries of a good many nations can take them down, Russia, China, most of Europe, Taiwan, England, France, Germany, Israel, even Japan could easily take one out.
> 
> This is why we try to only use them away from enemy forces that are a threat, or once air defenses have been taken out (they were not used in Iraq until Iraq's surface to air and air to air assets had largely been destroyed).
> 
> You seem to be seriously underestimating the capabilities of other nations around the world.
> 
> Hell, have you forgotten that Serbian forces shot down an F-117 with what is essentially a 40 year old missile system in 1999?
> 
> *Nothing* in our current military inventory is safe from harm.  The closest I can think of out of all of our hardware in the last 25 years that was largely impossible to destroy were our Battleships.  And the last of those was retired over 20 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see a lot of Patriot users there!  France is still fielding the Crotale and Mistral IIRC and there is virtually no way they could intercept a B-1.  The Germans are still using the Roland so that's not a worry, the new LFKNG (I believe is what it is called) will probably give them the capability but currently they haven't a prayer either.
> 
> The Swedes have the RBS 70 which is a MANPADS so unless the B-1 is coming in for a landing can just flat out run it.
> 
> The Brits have the Rapier which was excellent in its day but is now quite dated.  Same goes for the Blowpipe (though It CAN bring down the B-2).  The RN though has some excellent SAMS, the Seawolf, if the B-1 is low, will take it out no question; and the Sea Dart has a chance at mid altitude.  High altitude though and they are safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Upgrade the electronics in it...and I see no reason an SA-2 Guideline couldn't take down a Lancer.  Mach 3.5, can touch 80,000', and the huge warhead means it doesn't NEED to hit.
Click to expand...









That's true, but then that's all it would take to hit the B-2 too.  I don't see a B-2 doing an overflight of Russia any time soon.  Hell they flew them over South Korea..not North Korea.  If they were so stealthy they could have done that and no one would have known.

They didn't. 

As far as the MOP goes, they need to justify the existence of the B-2 so they will do whatever they can to support its supposed superiority.


----------



## Mushroom

HenryBHough said:


> The major impact came from the Marine Corps demand that it be made capable of vertical takeoff which added incredibly to weight and complexity, compromised the already limited stealth capability it once had.



But that is only 1 out of 3 models.  And it has minimal impact on the other 2.

And it was not the Marines demanding it, it was more the other way around.  The Marines were more then willing to develop an updated version of the Harrier, but they were forced to buy into the F-35 program.

However, to satisfy the needs of the Marines and replace both the F/A-18 and AV8B, they *had* to incorporate VSTOL capabilities.

They can always simply authorize the Corps to go ahead with a new updated Harrier, and kill the F-35B program as far as many are concerned.


----------



## Mushroom

Sallow said:


> I worked for a guy who was a Marine Pilot and he flew an A10.
> 
> He freakin loved it.



Sorry, bit of a contradiction there.

The A-10 is only flown by the Air Force.

Marines only fly F/A-18s and AV8Bs.


----------



## westwall

Mushroom said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> The major impact came from the Marine Corps demand that it be made capable of vertical takeoff which added incredibly to weight and complexity, compromised the already limited stealth capability it once had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that is only 1 out of 3 models.  And it has minimal impact on the other 2.
> 
> And it was not the Marines demanding it, it was more the other way around.  The Marines were more then willing to develop an updated version of the Harrier, but they were forced to buy into the F-35 program.
> 
> However, to satisfy the needs of the Marines and replace both the F/A-18 and AV8B, they *had* to incorporate VSTOL capabilities.
> 
> They can always simply authorize the Corps to go ahead with a new updated Harrier, and kill the F-35B program as far as many are concerned.
Click to expand...






That is completely untrue.  As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models.  It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised.   It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock.


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> What?  The B-2 is ALREADY being replaced?



Yea, after all it is only 26 years old.

Here is a hint, there are *always* replacement programs underway.

And if there was not, then the government should be shot for failing to carry out it's duty.



westwall said:


> That's true, but then that's all it would take to hit the B-2 too.  I don't see a B-2 doing an overflight of Russia any time soon.  Hell they flew them over South Korea..not North Korea.  If they were so stealthy they could have done that and no one would have known.
> 
> They didn't.
> 
> As far as the MOP goes, they need to justify the existence of the B-2 so they will do whatever they can to support its supposed superiority.



Sorry, but that really makes no sense...  We do not go around flying nuclear capable bombers over nations we are not engaged in hostilities with.

However, I am glad we have B2s prepared and capable of doing so if needed.

And the B-2 is needed.  Hell, the F-117 is still needed.  So are a great many things that the government has been taking away from the military over the last couple of decades.  Simply because some beancounter thinks they have a better idea of what we need.

After all, if it saves money, what does it matter how many servicemembers die?


----------



## SteadyMercury

HenryBHough said:


> Fuel consumption is outrageously high leading to short missions or frequent refueling requirements.


F-35Bs combat radius is 450nm.

Compare that to AV8B (what it is replacing) combat radius of 300nm.

So basically you are complaining about short missions that are 50% improvement.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> Yes, they are worthless.  They cost more than any other aircraft to operate, are less reliable than most, can't fly in the rain, and are so expensive that the brass won't risk them in any meaningful war.  They would not send them in to strike targets in Russia for instance because they would almost certainly get shot down.


Hey if you can't make a point with facts just make up some shit right? 

1. B-2 can fly in the rain, that is a myth (pointed out numerous times), so you are making shit up.
2. B-2 was used against heavy air defense systems in both Kosovo and Baghdad, so you are making shit up.



westwall said:


> As far as striking anywhere in the world, so can the B-52 and the B-1.  Hell the F-15 Strike Eagle can too.  It's only limit is the pilots endurance.


Ahh but you already talked about the additional aircraft needed to work with your B-1s and B-52s for SEAD and air superiority. So no, a B-1 can't strike anywhere in the world, it depends on how heavily defended the target is because you might need a carrier and/or a base with F-22s within range.


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> What?  The B-2 is ALREADY being replaced?


Hah hah who would look an an article about the next generation bomber that specifically ties it's introduction to the end of service life for B-1 and B-52, then conclude the B-2 is being replaced?

Answer = the guy who believes the B-2 can't fly in the rain


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> That's true, but then that's all it would take to hit the B-2 too.  I don't see a B-2 doing an overflight of Russia any time soon.  Hell they flew them over South Korea..not North Korea.  If they were so stealthy they could have done that and no one would have known.


An extremely low observable aircraft is much harder to detect and hit with a radar guided missile than one that isn't. You are taking great leaps of illogic to try to ignore this point and chase your incorrect conclusions.



westwall said:


> As far as the MOP goes, they need to justify the existence of the B-2 so they will do whatever they can to support its supposed superiority.


Yep when the facts don't support you just fall back on conspiracy theories right? They were first over Baghdad not because they made the most sense as a much more survivable platform since stealthy, not it was just propaganda!


----------



## SteadyMercury

westwall said:


> That is completely untrue.  As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models.  It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised.   It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock.


It is still rated as low-observable and will get first look at any other aircraft in the world first that isn't called F-22 or B-2. You either greatly underestimate how much of an advantage first-look is or are being purposely obtuse to cling to you argument.

You say it's range has been compromised because of the design so it won't be a good naval air fighter, but the F-35C (the naval variant) has a larger wing and more internal fuel that gives it a combat radius of 600nm, which is more than the F-18. 

I won't even bother with your silly harrier statement, we know you can somehow with a straight face say a AV-8B that is subsonic, far less range, non-stealthy, with less payload than the F-35B cannot be replaced by it.


----------



## Mushroom

SteadyMercury said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuel consumption is outrageously high leading to short missions or frequent refueling requirements.
> 
> 
> 
> F-35Bs combat radius is 450nm.
> 
> Compare that to AV8B (what it is replacing) combat radius of 300nm.
> 
> So basically you are complaining about short missions that are 50% improvement.
Click to expand...


But even more important then range is speed and loiter times.

The entire purpose of the AV8B/F-35B is not combat, but defense.  Something that some in here keep missing over and over and again (no matter how many times I repeat it).

The aircraft on board any kind of "carrier", be it a Nimitz class super carrier (CVN) or a Wasp class amphibious assault ship (LHD) is that their first, last, and primary mission is the protection of the Carrier and all other ships in the group.

And other strike mission is secondary to the primary mission.

And as such, the 300 nmi is not an issue, since that is much larger then their defensive bubble around their little fleet.  And if they have to go further, that is what tankers, drop tanks, and buddy tanks are for.


----------



## Mushroom

westwall said:


> That is completely untrue.  As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models. * It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised*.   It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock.



Somehow I missed this earlier, but now that I have seen it I have to comment.

Stealth has not a damned thing to do with intercepting.  Because during an intercept mission 9 times out of 10 the target being intercepted has no RADAR on, and is only tracking from feedback from a distant AWACS or some other FAC.

In fact, here is a quick bonus question:  What is the range of the RADAR in the F-117?

When talking about intercepting aircraft, the STEALTH capabilities of the interceptor are largely irrelevant.  It is the target that matters when it comes to STEALTH.

Oh, and the combat range of the F-35 series?  About the same as the F/A-18.


----------



## SteadyMercury

Mushroom said:


> Oh, and the combat range of the F-35 series?  About the same as the F/A-18.


This is key, and falls among the bullshit like "can't fly in the rain" or "can't carry enough ordinance" arguments that don't stand up to scrutiny yet are repeated over and over. F-35A range is comparable to F-18, F-35C range exceeds it, and F-35B is far greater than AV-8B, yet we keep seeing this range thing brought up.

F-35 has had problems, encountered setbacks, etc. but IMO there has never been more politics driving perception and twisting opinions. You end up with utterly absurd claims, like Westwall's that the AV-8B is a better aircraft in it's role, that have zero chance of being supported with facts.


----------



## SteadyMercury

MikeK said:


> Do you know of many, or any, examples of the A-10 being shot down or having failed in its primary mission?


I do!

Several have been shot down by SAMs, including MANPADS.

It isn't anything against the A-10, that is indeed one tough plane, but let's not start pretending it is somehow impervious to anti-aircraft fire.

Also = those pictures people like to post of A-10s with holes thru their wings and tails and pieces of one engine ripped up? That would be a mission kill, that plane isn't going back out the next day on another sortie, a heavily damaged plane isn't something to celebrate.


----------



## Jarlaxle

It is when it brings the pilot home!

(And I'd bet many of those Warthogs flew again in a few days.)


----------



## SteadyMercury

A high flyer accurately hitting targets with a targeting pod and precision guided munitions will bring it's pilot home too.

Back in the early 70s when A-10 was designed other fighter bombers couldn't effectively target moving targets on the ground because they would have to go low and slow thus exposing them to antiaircraft fire. Targets were spotted with eyeballs and weapons like the fart gun and the original electro-optical guided mavericks needed to be closer and in daylight.

Today we can effectively engage moving ground targets from much higher altitudes. An F-16/F-15E/B-52/F-18/A-10/B-1/Harrier with a sniper pod can identify, track, and put precision guided weapons on target from standoff range, greatly reducing the risk to pilot and plane. Networked battlefield information systems and newer weapons with tri-mode seekers expand this even further.

An A-10 flying low and slow can do a great job in an air support role, but this is no longer the only way to accomplish the mission.


----------



## Mr. H.

The USAF s Much Maligned A-10 Warthogs Are Deploying To Fight ISIS


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Worthless? Any other plane woulda wet its pants, nosed down, and crashed:







Kim Campbell pilot - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



Should be renamed 'Flying Tank'


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models.  It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised.


Every exercise they have makes ignorant statements like this look a little bit funnier. From Red Flag going on right now at Nellis....
Controversial F-35A warplane struts its stuff in Red Flag excercise

*"As of Thursday the F-35’s kill ratio with aggressor jets stood at 15-1"*

That sure sounds like a plane that can't perform in the air-to-air role due to compromised stealth eh? FOOL. The beauty of this is it'll keep on coming, year after year as more pilots fly this thing and it participates in more exercises it'll look more and more ridiculous people like you claiming it's all just PR stunts and propaganda.

We'll just keep on coming back to find the history of your "wisdom" on the F-35 going forward.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models.  It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised.
> 
> 
> 
> Every exercise they have makes ignorant statements like this look a little bit funnier. From Red Flag going on right now at Nellis....
> Controversial F-35A warplane struts its stuff in Red Flag excercise
> 
> *"As of Thursday the F-35’s kill ratio with aggressor jets stood at 15-1"*
> 
> That sure sounds like a plane that can't perform in the air-to-air role due to compromised stealth eh? FOOL. The beauty of this is it'll keep on coming, year after year as more pilots fly this thing and it participates in more exercises it'll look more and more ridiculous people like you claiming it's all just PR stunts and propaganda.
> 
> We'll just keep on coming back to find the history of your "wisdom" on the F-35 going forward.
Click to expand...








Yes, simulated combat is where it's at.  The F-15, on the other hand, has a better than 98-1 kill ratio in REAL combat.


----------



## DrainBamage

Ah I understand. 

Your position is that F-35 dominating other fighters in Red Flag isn't really indicative of anything since they weren't actually shooting live missiles. They can't figure out who can actually see their opponents first, get into a position for a lock, evade, etc. nah these exercises they run every year produce no meaningful information to evaluate how well different aircraft perform against each other in air combat. Complete boondoggle. We'll take that further and say by extension the F-22 doesn't make a good interceptor, since there is absolutely no combat evidence that it is the dominant air superiority fighter they claim it is, we don't believe in useful data from simulated combat.

Therefore Westwall's claim that the F-35 won't make a good interceptor stands, regardless of dominance in these silly Red Flag exercises.

You can't make up comedy gold like this.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> Ah I understand.
> 
> Your position is that F-35 dominating other fighters in Red Flag isn't really indicative of anything since they weren't actually shooting live missiles. They can't figure out who can actually see their opponents first, get into a position for a lock, evade, etc. nah these exercises they run every year produce no meaningful information to evaluate how well different aircraft perform against each other in air combat. Complete boondoggle. We'll take that further and say by extension the F-22 doesn't make a good interceptor, since there is absolutely no combat evidence that it is the dominant air superiority fighter they claim it is, we don't believe in useful data from simulated combat.
> 
> Therefore Westwall's claim that the F-35 won't make a good interceptor stands, regardless of dominance in these silly Red Flag exercises.
> 
> You can't make up comedy gold like this.








No, what I'm saying is the F-35 should have a 15-0 kill ratio based on the hype we are hearing.  Simulated combat is a good way to assess an aircraft and 15-1 is good, but for the exhorbitant cost i would expect better performance than that.  The F-15 is still the most successful air to air fighter ever fielded in real combat so that is what I am measuring the F-35 against.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah I understand.
> 
> Your position is that F-35 dominating other fighters in Red Flag isn't really indicative of anything since they weren't actually shooting live missiles. They can't figure out who can actually see their opponents first, get into a position for a lock, evade, etc. nah these exercises they run every year produce no meaningful information to evaluate how well different aircraft perform against each other in air combat. Complete boondoggle. We'll take that further and say by extension the F-22 doesn't make a good interceptor, since there is absolutely no combat evidence that it is the dominant air superiority fighter they claim it is, we don't believe in useful data from simulated combat.
> 
> Therefore Westwall's claim that the F-35 won't make a good interceptor stands, regardless of dominance in these silly Red Flag exercises.
> 
> You can't make up comedy gold like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what I'm saying is the F-35 should have a 15-0 kill ratio based on the hype we are hearing.  Simulated combat is a good way to assess an aircraft and 15-1 is good, but for the exhorbitant cost i would expect better performance than that.  The F-15 is still the most successful air to air fighter ever fielded in real combat so that is what I am measuring the F-35 against.
Click to expand...


Let's take a look at that statement.  In Redflag, the blue team is flying against the red team.  The Red Team is made up of the best the AF has.  These guys take the F-5D and make fools out of regular F-15C Pilots.   The idea behind Red Flag is to teach the Blue Team not to fail by putting up more and more deadly red team until it actually does.  What the normal pilots bring out of is is knowing how to win.  But first you have to learn how to lose.  You may think you are a hot stick but Red Flag, like Top Gun, makes you become a better stick.

Now about capability.  Let's do the same loadout on a F-16 that a F-35 normally carries.  You are going to need two drop tanks, 4 Air to Air, two bombs, all carried externally.  While the F-35A is capable of Mach 1.6, the F-16 just dropped to Mach 1.3 or less.  The F-35A maintains a 9+ G rating while your F-16 drops to 7.5.  Those are the real numbers, not something extracted from an early test.

When flying Red Flag, the F-15 doesn't come off so well.  Remember, it's flying against the best of the best.  It doesn't even make a 4 to 1 kill rate there.  Yes, the real world, it's 105 to 0 but Red Flag is not real world.  It's you against the best of the best.  For the F-35A to get a 15 to 1 in air to air role, that's pretty damned impressive.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Mr. H. said:


> Talk to the pilots.


and the tens of thousands of ground troops who are alive because of the close air support capability and massive fire power of the Warthog


----------



## bodecea

westwall said:


> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....right....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on....  lots of pictures showing the destruction that the A-10's have wrought on enemy tanks.
> 
> You sir, are a moron..
Click to expand...

A-6s from Carriers in the gulf did a lot of that too.


----------



## westwall

bodecea said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imissbush said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I heard the ground Troops loved the A-10 which they affectionately called "the warthog". The A-10 could come in low and slow and kick the doo-doo out of enemy troops. Hell, they used prop planes in Korea and Vietnam for the same reason. The times have changed and the fat asses in the Pentagon no longer want to fight or take responsibility for the deaths on both sides in a freaking battle. The A-10 is no longer useful because the fat asses set the rules so you couldn't use it. The US Troops in Afghanistan have to get permission practically from the Secretary of Defense to call in an artillery strike and Troops have to hold their fire and risk their lives rather than take a chance in a court martial if a rag head civilian is killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah....right....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on and on and on....  lots of pictures showing the destruction that the A-10's have wrought on enemy tanks.
> 
> You sir, are a moron..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A-6s from Carriers in the gulf did a lot of that too.
Click to expand...





Actually the USMC 3rd MAW started the whole thing with Rockeyes at both ends of the column.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Skull Pilot said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk to the pilots.
> 
> 
> 
> and the tens of thousands of ground troops who are alive because of the close air support capability and massive fire power of the Warthog
Click to expand...


Agreed.  But the same can be said about the A-7, A-6, F-18, F-4, F-16, F-15, AC-130 and more.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> No, what I'm saying is the F-35 should have a 15-0 kill ratio based on the hype we are hearing.


Ahh so you've got some exact barometer on "hype" where you can quantify expectations of kill ratio and decide whether it meets approved metrics of hype.

The hype was that is was an outstanding fighter jet that would be second only to F-22 in air to air capabilities. 15-1 (or 10-1) against some of the best pilots in the world flying F-15s and F-16s qualifies that hype, something that rational people knew while you were babbling stupidly about how it wouldn't be a good interceptor because of whatever misplaced ideas on stealth compromise you got in your head.

Answer me this: does 15-1 help your argument that it won't be a good interceptor? Of course not.



westwall said:


> Simulated combat is a good way to assess an aircraft and 15-1 is good, but for the exhorbitant cost i would expect better performance than that.


The ever moving goal posts of Westwall. From "not a good interceptor" to would have expected better than 15-1.

I guess we can all congratulate you on moving past the "it's all PR stunt propaganda" phase of looking like a fool on F-35. Good job!


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what I'm saying is the F-35 should have a 15-0 kill ratio based on the hype we are hearing.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh so you've got some exact barometer on "hype" where you can quantify expectations of kill ratio and decide whether it meets approved metrics of hype.
> 
> The hype was that is was an outstanding fighter jet that would be second only to F-22 in air to air capabilities. 15-1 (or 10-1) against some of the best pilots in the world flying F-15s and F-16s qualifies that hype, something that rational people knew while you were babbling stupidly about how it wouldn't be a good interceptor because of whatever misplaced ideas on stealth compromise you got in your head.
> 
> Answer me this: does 15-1 help your argument that it won't be a good interceptor? Of course not.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simulated combat is a good way to assess an aircraft and 15-1 is good, but for the exhorbitant cost i would expect better performance than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The ever moving goal posts of Westwall. From "not a good interceptor" to would have expected better than 15-1.
> 
> I guess we can all congratulate you on moving past the "it's all PR stunt propaganda" phase of looking like a fool on F-35. Good job!
Click to expand...







Poor drain, misrepresenting what I am saying doesn't help your cause in the slightest.  The OP is the F-35 worth what it costs?  Will it do the job they claim it will?  The evidence says that in the CAS role it will not be up to snuff.  The evidence shows that in the BVR field it will be very, very good.  But once it is at knife range a Fourth Gen fighter will be able to match it.  The evidence shows that the cost claims are wildly conservative when we KNOW that there are over 200 problems that still have to be addressed and thus the actual cost of the aircraft is completely, and totally unknown until those issues are rectified. 

The claims from the first exercise we have found were not exactly truthful, thus the assertion that the press releases are biased certainly has merit.  By all means post FACTUAL information about the aircraft.  Just realize that we here are smart and can recognize propaganda for what it is quite easily.

And to continue the assault on the F-35 Norway is rightfully concerned that LM won't be able to adequately support the F-35 for quite a while as they work through the problems.

*Norway Fears Lockheed Not Ready To Support F-35*
Jan 27, 2017Lara Seligman *| *Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Norway Fears Lockheed Not Ready To Support F-35


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Now about capability.  Let's do the same loadout on a F-16 that a F-35 normally carries.  You are going to need two drop tanks, 4 Air to Air, two bombs, all carried externally.  While the F-35A is capable of Mach 1.6, the F-16 just dropped to Mach 1.3 or less.  The F-35A maintains a 9+ G rating while your F-16 drops to 7.5.  Those are the real numbers, not something extracted from an early test.


Might as well thrown in a targeting pod and an ECM pod if that F-16 wants to match F-35 in offensive capabilities. 



Daryl Hunt said:


> When flying Red Flag, the F-15 doesn't come off so well.  Remember, it's flying against the best of the best.  It doesn't even make a 4 to 1 kill rate there.  Yes, the real world, it's 105 to 0 but Red Flag is not real world.  It's you against the best of the best.  For the F-35A to get a 15 to 1 in air to air role, that's pretty damned impressive.


I think we both know Westwall is just going to keep moving the goal posts here. We have F-35 being flown by pilots still learning how to best use the aircraft against some of the best pilots USAF has, and now he would have expected better than 15-1.

F-35 is showing it is a dominant air to air fighter, and he hates it. He hates that he was wrong about it, he takes pride as coming off as the expert so this drives him crazy.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Poor drain, misrepresenting what I am saying doesn't help your cause in the slightest.  The OP is the F-35 worth what it costs?  Will it do the job they claim it will?  The evidence says that in the CAS role it will not be up to snuff.


CAS? What? My post was about you saying F-35 won't make a good interceptor because it's stealth was compromised.



westwall said:


> The evidence shows that in the BVR field it will be very, very good.  But once it is at knife range a Fourth Gen fighter will be able to match it.


Your first statement is correct. You second statement isn't, at least according to pilot accounts on F-35.

And of course you are the one who believes F-35 won't make a good interceptor.



westwall said:


> The claims from the first exercise we have found were not exactly truthful.


There is no "we" here, you took a quote out of context and ignored other information that didn't suit you, claiming some big conspiracy uncovered.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now about capability.  Let's do the same loadout on a F-16 that a F-35 normally carries.  You are going to need two drop tanks, 4 Air to Air, two bombs, all carried externally.  While the F-35A is capable of Mach 1.6, the F-16 just dropped to Mach 1.3 or less.  The F-35A maintains a 9+ G rating while your F-16 drops to 7.5.  Those are the real numbers, not something extracted from an early test.
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well thrown in a targeting pod and an ECM pod if that F-16 wants to match F-35 in offensive capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> When flying Red Flag, the F-15 doesn't come off so well.  Remember, it's flying against the best of the best.  It doesn't even make a 4 to 1 kill rate there.  Yes, the real world, it's 105 to 0 but Red Flag is not real world.  It's you against the best of the best.  For the F-35A to get a 15 to 1 in air to air role, that's pretty damned impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we both know Westwall is just going to keep moving the goal posts here. We have F-35 being flown by pilots still learning how to best use the aircraft against some of the best pilots USAF has, and now he would have expected better than 15-1.
> 
> F-35 is showing it is a dominant air to air fighter, and he hates it. He hates that he was wrong about it, he takes pride as coming off as the expert so this drives him crazy.
Click to expand...








I don't "hate" anything.  What I desire is an aircraft that will do the job at a cost that is commensurate with it's capabilities.  The Marines have a F-35 detachment in Japan with a 70-80% serviceability rate.  Red Flag had 13 JSF's and they only managed to get 110 sorties in over the two week period.  That's .6 sorties per day.  Not exactly a blistering pace.


----------



## westwall

DrainBamage said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor drain, misrepresenting what I am saying doesn't help your cause in the slightest.  The OP is the F-35 worth what it costs?  Will it do the job they claim it will?  The evidence says that in the CAS role it will not be up to snuff.
> 
> 
> 
> CAS? What? My post was about you saying F-35 won't make a good interceptor because it's stealth was compromised.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence shows that in the BVR field it will be very, very good.  But once it is at knife range a Fourth Gen fighter will be able to match it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your first statement is correct. You second statement isn't, at least according to pilot accounts on F-35.
> 
> And of course you are the one who believes F-35 won't make a good interceptor.
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claims from the first exercise we have found were not exactly truthful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no "we" here, you took a quote out of context and ignored other information that didn't suit you, claiming some big conspiracy uncovered.
Click to expand...





It doesn't perform significantly better than the Eurofighter or the Rafael in the standard dogfight.  Thus, with the greater number of fourth gen fighters out there the F-35 will be at a disadvantage in a large scale air battle.  That's just simple numbers.  The JSF should be a superlative interceptor.  It's all the other jobs they claim it can do that I question.  Get your facts straight.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

westwall said:


> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now about capability.  Let's do the same loadout on a F-16 that a F-35 normally carries.  You are going to need two drop tanks, 4 Air to Air, two bombs, all carried externally.  While the F-35A is capable of Mach 1.6, the F-16 just dropped to Mach 1.3 or less.  The F-35A maintains a 9+ G rating while your F-16 drops to 7.5.  Those are the real numbers, not something extracted from an early test.
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well thrown in a targeting pod and an ECM pod if that F-16 wants to match F-35 in offensive capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> When flying Red Flag, the F-15 doesn't come off so well.  Remember, it's flying against the best of the best.  It doesn't even make a 4 to 1 kill rate there.  Yes, the real world, it's 105 to 0 but Red Flag is not real world.  It's you against the best of the best.  For the F-35A to get a 15 to 1 in air to air role, that's pretty damned impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we both know Westwall is just going to keep moving the goal posts here. We have F-35 being flown by pilots still learning how to best use the aircraft against some of the best pilots USAF has, and now he would have expected better than 15-1.
> 
> F-35 is showing it is a dominant air to air fighter, and he hates it. He hates that he was wrong about it, he takes pride as coming off as the expert so this drives him crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" anything.  What I desire is an aircraft that will do the job at a cost that is commensurate with it's capabilities.  The Marines have a F-35 detachment in Japan with a 70-80% serviceability rate.  Red Flag had 13 JSF's and they only managed to get 110 sorties in over the two week period.  That's .6 sorties per day.  Not exactly a blistering pace.
Click to expand...


70 to 8o% against a F-15 at 70.  Sounds like an improvement.  BTW, the AV8B has a much lower rate that that.

Here is the rest of that writeup you cherry picked

Since the exercise began, Hill’s Airmen have generated 110 sorties, including their first 10-jet F-35A sortie Jan. 30 and turned around and launched eight jets that afternoon. They have not lost a single sortie to a maintenance issue and have a 92 percent mission-capable rate, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, assistant officer in charge of the 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Legacy aircraft average 70 to 85 percent mission-capable.​
You are a lying piece of garbage.  Stop lying or we will have the Moderator ban you.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Red Flag had 13 JSF's and they only managed to get 110 sorties in over the two week period.  That's .6 sorties per day.  Not exactly a blistering pace.


Logic and math fail. Red Flag began Jan 23, and that article was posted February 2nd. 

We don't how many days F-35s were scheduled to fly, how many sorties they are supposed to be in, basically you are attempting to draw a conclusion to criticize it's availability rate without enough information to make any judgement on it. Such is the dogmatic pursuit of someone who hates it's success and foolish it is making the critics look.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now about capability.  Let's do the same loadout on a F-16 that a F-35 normally carries.  You are going to need two drop tanks, 4 Air to Air, two bombs, all carried externally.  While the F-35A is capable of Mach 1.6, the F-16 just dropped to Mach 1.3 or less.  The F-35A maintains a 9+ G rating while your F-16 drops to 7.5.  Those are the real numbers, not something extracted from an early test.
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well thrown in a targeting pod and an ECM pod if that F-16 wants to match F-35 in offensive capabilities.
Click to expand...


With that, the F-16 gets slower, turns slower, rolls slower and uses more gas.  The safe G rate goes down even further.



> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> When flying Red Flag, the F-15 doesn't come off so well.  Remember, it's flying against the best of the best.  It doesn't even make a 4 to 1 kill rate there.  Yes, the real world, it's 105 to 0 but Red Flag is not real world.  It's you against the best of the best.  For the F-35A to get a 15 to 1 in air to air role, that's pretty damned impressive.
> 
> 
> 
> I think we both know Westwall is just going to keep moving the goal posts here. We have F-35 being flown by pilots still learning how to best use the aircraft against some of the best pilots USAF has, and now he would have expected better than 15-1.
> 
> F-35 is showing it is a dominant air to air fighter, and he hates it. He hates that he was wrong about it, he takes pride as coming off as the expert so this drives him crazy.
Click to expand...


He's an idiot.  And a Troll.  He should have been warned by the Moderator long ago.  Oh, that's right, our Moderator is a liar as well and only looks after his buddies.


----------



## Manonthestreet

How has the thread wondered this far......Why btw is AF looking at acquiring 300 light strike fighters.....It's called cost per hr of operation..........


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> It doesn't perform significantly better than the Eurofighter or the Rafael in the standard dogfight.  Thus, with the greater number of fourth gen fighters out there the F-35 will be at a disadvantage in a large scale air battle.


Ahh so now you're imagining some air war of furball dogfights everywhere in which the thousands of F-35s they are going to build are so outnumbered they are rendered useless. Right. The 15-1 record so far in Red Flag definitely supports the latest pile you're shoveling.



westwall said:


> As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models.  *It won't be a good interceptor* because it's stealthiness has been compromised.





westwall said:


> *The JSF should be a superlative interceptor*.  It's all the other jobs they claim it can do that I question.  Get your facts straight.


Speaking of keeping facts straight, sounds like you're already attempting to revise the history of your view points.


----------



## Manonthestreet

They won't build thousands Naval variant is under review .....At most you might get 2 squadrons per carrier simply because you have been forced into it new design alrdy on the board.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> How has the thread wondered this far......Why btw is AF looking at acquiring 300 light strike fighters.....It's called cost per hr of operation..........




Wow,  we finally agree on something.  It appears our "Moderator" needs to be fired.

And, no I don't agree that the A-10 is a piece of crap.   When the situation is very tightly in the A-10s wheel house then it will be the best.  AFterall, it's like a car that gets you to work every day, looks like crap, but it's paid for.  

I don't know how many they are looking to aquire.  But we both know it's coming right, wrong or indifferent.

(p.s.  Seems like our POS Moderator is playing games with the speed that I can display)


----------



## DrainBamage

Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet

*“It’s a much more difficult adversary that we are fighting against here as a team than we would have fought against a year and a half ago, when I was here last,” Watkins said, referencing his previous Red Flag event, which he flew in as an F-16 pilot.  “They have stepped up the number of red air that we’re fighting — the number of aggressor aircraft that are fighting against us — the amount of jamming and stuff that they’re providing against us, the skill level of the adversary that they are trying to replicate, as well as the surface-to-air missile threat.” *

*Fifth-generation aggressors will not be introduced during this Red Flag, but the sheer number of fourth-generation adversaries have posed a problem for participants. Up to about 24 adversaries can be in flight at the same time and can regenerate three or four times after being shot down, Watkins said. The F-35A’s kill ratio stands at 15 aggressors to 1 F-35 killed in action, but because Red Flag is a training exercise, the fighter shouldn’t have a perfect record, he contended. 

“If we didn’t suffer a few loses, it wouldn’t be challenging enough, so we’d have to go back and redo it. So there are some threats out there that make it through because of their sheer numbers and the advanced threats that they’re shooting at us. So we have had one or two losses so far in our training,” he said. “That’s good for the pilots.” *

Not good enough for some critics, apparently 15-1 in these conditions doesn't match the hype so this plane is a dud.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> They won't build thousands Naval variant is under review .....At most you might get 2 squadrons per carrier simply because you have been forced into it new design alrdy on the board.


Being under review doesn't mean they aren't going to buy it, and the Navy is only planning on buying 260 anyway.


----------



## Manonthestreet

I'll be more confident of f-35 advertised prowess when I hear from the opposition pilots and rundown of scenarios ........How will f-35 handle opposition at alt advantage......And such .....


----------



## Manonthestreet

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> They won't build thousands Naval variant is under review .....At most you might get 2 squadrons per carrier simply because you have been forced into it new design alrdy on the board.
> 
> 
> 
> Being under review doesn't mean they aren't going to buy it, and the Navy is only planning on buying 260 anyway.
Click to expand...

Proof there won't be thousands......And that they aren't impressed


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Proof there won't be thousands......And that they aren't impressed


US Navy is conducting a review. That doesn't mean they are canceling anything. US Navy is only ordering 260 out of the 3,100 that are planned, so even if they canceled all of their order (which they won't) you've still got thousands.

How exactly does this provide proof there won't be thousands? Sure we don't know the future (see F-22) but I don't the word "proof" is being properly used here.


----------



## Manonthestreet

260 for Navy......  Like quantity for Marines .,.....Doubt AF will buy even a thousand ......


----------



## DrainBamage

Marines absolutely love it, they are the farthest onboard of any branch. I've seen no indication the Air Force wants to decrease their order.

I think the word "proof" is still lacking here.


----------



## Manonthestreet

You simply won't be able to afford them ..


DrainBamage said:


> Marines absolutely love it, they are the farthest onboard of any branch. I've seen no indication the Air Force wants to decrease their order.
> 
> I think the word "proof" is still lacking here.


AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will be


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> 260 for Navy......  Like quantity for Marines .,.....Doubt AF will buy even a thousand ......



You are discounting the rest of the world.  While it would be relegated to 2nd class for battle, some of the rest of the world would buy it as their front lined fighter.  The kiss of death is for the DOD to reject something.  Remember the F-20?  But if the DOD accepts it then it's world wide sales in guaranteed.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> You simply won't be able to afford them ..
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marines absolutely love it, they are the farthest onboard of any branch. I've seen no indication the Air Force wants to decrease their order.
> 
> I think the word "proof" is still lacking here.
> 
> 
> 
> AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will be
Click to expand...


They already have a very high altitude fighter, the F-15.  If they need more, they can be bought.  But at a whopping 110 mil each.


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will be


Why? Do you know how much fighting happens above 50,000 feet? Hint = very little.

Go look at history of US air combat shoot downs since the 90s. The stats that stand out most are transonic speeds, medium altitude, and AMRAAM.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply won't be able to afford them ..
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marines absolutely love it, they are the farthest onboard of any branch. I've seen no indication the Air Force wants to decrease their order.
> 
> I think the word "proof" is still lacking here.
> 
> 
> 
> AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already have a very high altitude fighter, the F-15.  If they need more, they can be bought.  But at a whopping 110 mil each.
Click to expand...

F15 is old...Not to mention we operate the oldest and least capable version in the world


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Manonthestreet said:


> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply won't be able to afford them ..
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marines absolutely love it, they are the farthest onboard of any branch. I've seen no indication the Air Force wants to decrease their order.
> 
> I think the word "proof" is still lacking here.
> 
> 
> 
> AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already have a very high altitude fighter, the F-15.  If they need more, they can be bought.  But at a whopping 110 mil each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> F15 is old...Not to mention we operate the oldest and least capable version in the world
Click to expand...


You hinted we had none.  Well, we do.  And our F-15s have been upgraded till the cows come home.  They still get first look/first shoot with every fighter except the F-22 and the F-35.  And the F-15 can almost go into space and zoom to over 100,000 feet.  The only one that can beat it is an old 60s bird, the Mig-25 for altitude.  Can it fly at 60K, yes.  Can it fly at 70K, yes.  Can it fly at 80K, yes but the fuel and the pilots blood starts to boil.  

Technically, we can build a jet to fly at 100,000 feet.  But without a space suit, the pilot can't handle it.  Hence the full pressure suits for the SR-71 pilots.

Besides, there is little to trying to fight above 40K.  The air gets too thin, the engines start to starve for air, the pilots start having some serious health problems.  Most fights are 20k and below since that is where the fighters will have the best performance.  You keep looking at the paper performance.  The actual performance is different.


----------



## westwall

Daryl Hunt said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now about capability.  Let's do the same loadout on a F-16 that a F-35 normally carries.  You are going to need two drop tanks, 4 Air to Air, two bombs, all carried externally.  While the F-35A is capable of Mach 1.6, the F-16 just dropped to Mach 1.3 or less.  The F-35A maintains a 9+ G rating while your F-16 drops to 7.5.  Those are the real numbers, not something extracted from an early test.
> 
> 
> 
> Might as well thrown in a targeting pod and an ECM pod if that F-16 wants to match F-35 in offensive capabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> When flying Red Flag, the F-15 doesn't come off so well.  Remember, it's flying against the best of the best.  It doesn't even make a 4 to 1 kill rate there.  Yes, the real world, it's 105 to 0 but Red Flag is not real world.  It's you against the best of the best.  For the F-35A to get a 15 to 1 in air to air role, that's pretty damned impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think we both know Westwall is just going to keep moving the goal posts here. We have F-35 being flown by pilots still learning how to best use the aircraft against some of the best pilots USAF has, and now he would have expected better than 15-1.
> 
> F-35 is showing it is a dominant air to air fighter, and he hates it. He hates that he was wrong about it, he takes pride as coming off as the expert so this drives him crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "hate" anything.  What I desire is an aircraft that will do the job at a cost that is commensurate with it's capabilities.  The Marines have a F-35 detachment in Japan with a 70-80% serviceability rate.  Red Flag had 13 JSF's and they only managed to get 110 sorties in over the two week period.  That's .6 sorties per day.  Not exactly a blistering pace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 70 to 8o% against a F-15 at 70.  Sounds like an improvement.  BTW, the AV8B has a much lower rate that that.
> 
> Here is the rest of that writeup you cherry picked
> 
> Since the exercise began, Hill’s Airmen have generated 110 sorties, including their first 10-jet F-35A sortie Jan. 30 and turned around and launched eight jets that afternoon. They have not lost a single sortie to a maintenance issue and have a 92 percent mission-capable rate, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, assistant officer in charge of the 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Legacy aircraft average 70 to 85 percent mission-capable.​
> You are a lying piece of garbage.  Stop lying or we will have the Moderator ban you.
Click to expand...







I see figures of 80% for the F-15 and the main reason for that low rate is the fact that the obama admin was not funding maintenance programs.  The F-22 as of 2015 had a 62.8% rate.


----------



## DrainBamage

Daryl Hunt said:


> Besides, there is little to trying to fight above 40K.  The air gets too thin, the engines start to starve for air, the pilots start having some serious health problems.  Most fights are 20k and below since that is where the fighters will have the best performance.  You keep looking at the paper performance.  The actual performance is different.


Exactly, I'm baffled at this fixation with fighters zipping around at 60k feet. F-16 and F-35 have similar specs 50k+ feet yet many countries use F-16 as their primary interceptor. I believe Rafale is 50k+ as well. Up that high you have a turn radius about the size of Texas, it isn't practical. I forget exact but median altitude where air combat occurs since 90s was in the 20ks, and speed mach 0.8. Being over 50k is useful if you're a recon plane going in a straight line.

Also this isn't the days of an F-4 trying to hit a Foxbat way up high using a Sparrow missile with 25 mile range. AIM-120D is going 100 miles and doing it on a smarter ballistic trajectory, being 10k feet higher with a head start is no longer a free pass.


----------



## DrainBamage

westwall said:


> Red Flag had 13 JSF's and they only managed to get 110 sorties in over the two week period.  That's .6 sorties per day.  Not exactly a blistering pace.


Aside from your obvious math fail, there is this:

F-35A proving its worth at Red Flag combat exercise
*Since the exercise began, Hill’s Airmen have generated 110 sorties, including their first 10-jet F-35A sortie Jan. 30 and turned around and launched eight jets that afternoon. They have not lost a single sortie to a maintenance issue and have a 92 percent mission-capable rate, said 1st Lt. Devin Ferguson, assistant officer in charge of the 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit. Legacy aircraft average 70 to 85 percent mission-capable. *


----------



## Manonthestreet

Daryl Hunt said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daryl Hunt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply won't be able to afford them ..
> 
> 
> DrainBamage said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marines absolutely love it, they are the farthest onboard of any branch. I've seen no indication the Air Force wants to decrease their order.
> 
> I think the word "proof" is still lacking here.
> 
> 
> 
> AF needs more than 189 high altitude fighters which f35 never will be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already have a very high altitude fighter, the F-15.  If they need more, they can be bought.  But at a whopping 110 mil each.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> F15 is old...Not to mention we operate the oldest and least capable version in the world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hinted we had none.  Well, we do.  And our F-15s have been upgraded till the cows come home.  They still get first look/first shoot with every fighter except the F-22 and the F-35.  And the F-15 can almost go into space and zoom to over 100,000 feet.  The only one that can beat it is an old 60s bird, the Mig-25 for altitude.  Can it fly at 60K, yes.  Can it fly at 70K, yes.  Can it fly at 80K, yes but the fuel and the pilots blood starts to boil.
> 
> Technically, we can build a jet to fly at 100,000 feet.  But without a space suit, the pilot can't handle it.  Hence the full pressure suits for the SR-71 pilots.
> 
> Besides, there is little to trying to fight above 40K.  The air gets too thin, the engines start to starve for air, the pilots start having some serious health problems.  Most fights are 20k and below since that is where the fighters will have the best performance.  You keep looking at the paper performance.  The actual performance is different.
Click to expand...

Our F15 not as good as what we build for other nations and they are old and heavily used. Don't have to fly at 100000 if your opponent can only hit 30_35 when loaded....Quite a lot of head room there to exploit.....Course they would never do that nnnnnnoooo


----------



## Deleted member 61768

I witnessed A-10s work the tank tables at Fort Hood above my unit and what those things could do to tank chassis was most impressive. Those 30MM slugs especially at night would light up the area upon impact. The low hum of that gun would be great if you needed fire support as it would tear apart anything. May be it would not be the greatest tank killer ever invented but if I was ever in need of air support in a tight valley high up in the mountains where helicopters lose power I know what sound I would want to hear! It would that buruuup of that 30mm A-10 Warthog backing me up! It has saved many a ground pounders' bacon out of the fire not to mention scares the crap out of the bad guys with good reason!


----------



## DrainBamage

Manonthestreet said:


> Don't have to fly at 100000 if your opponent can only hit 30_35 when loaded....Quite a lot of head room there to exploit.....Course they would never do that nnnnnnoooo


You have this weird obsession with max altitude. Again I'd invite you to look at stats on where planes fight at in the modern era, it is almost always 25k-30k feet because that is there optimal cruising altitude. It isn't like all these fighter pilots, with aircraft that have been capable of 60k+ feet for decades just didn't think of it like you did. That high up and at high speed your turn radius is Gulf of Mexico.

You do bring up a good point on the load, aircraft with internal carry have a big advantage in performance since the specs are for clean. Drop tanks, targeting pods, ECM pods, external missiles (especially large Russian ones) all impact perfomance, but planes like F-22 and F-35 carrying weapons internally don't suffer the same penalties so their actual performance will be a lot closer to clean profile.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

DrainBamage said:


> Manonthestreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't have to fly at 100000 if your opponent can only hit 30_35 when loaded....Quite a lot of head room there to exploit.....Course they would never do that nnnnnnoooo
> 
> 
> 
> You have this weird obsession with max altitude. Again I'd invite you to look at stats on where planes fight at in the modern era, it is almost always 25k-30k feet because that is there optimal cruising altitude. It isn't like all these fighter pilots, with aircraft that have been capable of 60k+ feet for decades just didn't think of it like you did. That high up and at high speed your turn radius is Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> You do bring up a good point on the load, aircraft with internal carry have a big advantage in performance since the specs are for clean. Drop tanks, targeting pods, ECM pods, external missiles (especially large Russian ones) all impact perfomance, but planes like F-22 and F-35 carrying weapons internally don't suffer the same penalties so their actual performance will be a lot closer to clean profile.
Click to expand...



The reason the F-16 carried drop tanks was because it didn't have enough fuel to gauge the F-35.  Those two drop tanks dropped it from a Mach 2 Fighter all the way down to a Mach 1.3.  And it took the 9G max down to 7.5.  The F-35 was the F-35-A2 meaning it was a test bird and could not exceed 6.5Gs.  Had it been a production model, it would be a 9+g turn rate and a max of Mach 1.6.  In a real fight, the F-16 would have to drop both tanks and have a matter of a couple of minutes in the fight while the F-35 will just outlast the F-16.  For dogfighting, the specs read that the F-35A needs to meet the F-16s specs, not exceed them.  It does just that and has a longer flight time to boot.  Overall, the F-16 may be using it's radar to guide the F-35As weapons.


----------



## Daryl Hunt

Paparock said:


> I witnessed A-10s work the tank tables at Fort Hood above my unit and what those things could do to tank chassis was most impressive. Those 30MM slugs especially at night would light up the area upon impact. The low hum of that gun would be great if you needed fire support as it would tear apart anything. May be it would not be the greatest tank killer ever invented but if I was ever in need of air support in a tight valley high up in the mountains where helicopters lose power I know what sound I would want to hear! It would that buruuup of that 30mm A-10 Warthog backing me up! It has saved many a ground pounders' bacon out of the fire not to mention scares the crap out of the bad guys with good reason!



In an Uncontested area, you are right.  Those tank chassis don't shoot back.  Now, arm you ground pounders with a few ManPads and everything changes.  The A-10 goes to medium altitude where it can fire it's longer ranged weapons.  At that point, it becomes no different than either a Buff or a F-16.


----------



## yiostheoy

DrainBamage said:


> ... We'll just keep on coming back to find the history of your "wisdom" on the F-35 going forward.


So why on Earth did you resurrect this old dead tired useless thread ???


----------



## DrainBamage

yiostheoy said:


> So why on Earth did you resurrect this old dead tired useless thread ???


Because so called "experts" who spout complete bullshit need to stand by their claims.


----------

