Best Fighter Jet

[The Sotoan Union]

There is this colour booklet that specifically instructed A-10 pilots to not aim for the entire front and the side turret of T-62's because at those angles vs those plates the 30 mm API round would fail completely to penetrate. T-72 Urals I presume would be entirely no go and if attempted would probably lead to a mission-killed Warthog from a MANPADS BTR instead.

An interesting quote from the article which ultimately kills any hope of the F-35 being an effective CAS platform:

“Assuming that Iraq and Afghanistan are typical of future conflicts—and that is not a rock-solid assumption—then I think the A-10 type of close-air support weapon to be useful,” he says. “Fast movers cannot do the job as well. I’ve flown CAS in fast movers and it just isn’t going to happen in many situations. Speed in CAS is a detriment, not an asset.”

But maybe the F-35 was also designed with conventional conflicts against more modern militaries in mind. Not every war will be like Iraq and Afghanistan, and if wars like that continue couldn't they just keep using A-10s?

[North Calaveras]

When i think of best fighter jet i'm talking about shit that matters

the F-16 and the Hornet are both battle proven and clear the skies without to much effort and we can field many of them.

the F-22 is great but it also costs a fortune.

so in terms of practically when it comes to war, im probably going with the F-16.

[Husseinarti]

There is this colour booklet that specifically instructed A-10 pilots to not aim for the entire front and the side turret of T-62's because at those angles vs those plates the 30 mm API round would fail completely to penetrate. T-72 Urals I presume would be entirely no go and if attempted would probably lead to a mission-killed Warthog from a MANPADS BTR instead.

An interesting quote from the article which ultimately kills any hope of the F-35 being an effective CAS platform:

“Assuming that Iraq and Afghanistan are typical of future conflicts—and that is not a rock-solid assumption—then I think the A-10 type of close-air support weapon to be useful,” he says. “Fast movers cannot do the job as well. I’ve flown CAS in fast movers and it just isn’t going to happen in many situations. Speed in CAS is a detriment, not an asset.”

Any fly-boy is going to boast that his shitty little CAS is the end all of low-intensity warfare.

Meanwhile, the M777A1, M119A3, and the M109A6 have provided more on-time and on-target fire support than any F or A-series.

[Grenartia]

1. I expect Saddam's SAM sites were capable of a bit more damage than MANPADS.

By the time the A-10's arrived, Saddam's SAM sites were getting wrecked by Coalition SEAD operations. 1. However, long-ranged SAM sites aren't what makes the A-10 obsolete, SHORADS and MANPADS do. Why? Because in order to use it's gun, the A-10 has to fly directly into the targeting profile of both types of weapons, something which it cannot survive.

It's also worth noting that the majority of the kills claimed by A-10's during the Gulf Wars were preformed with PGMs rather than the GAU-8.

2. Except, you know, anti-missile countermeasures are a thing. You can't misdirect a bullet away from you. Especially not one fired from the Avenger.

Hence the pK of 20%.

The GAU-8's problem is that it can't penetrate anything more modern than a T-62 across the frontal aspect, and has to put the aircraft into the teeth of short-range air defenses to do so.

3. I'm aware.

Than why bother posting?

4. Ok, I take back that it was designed for mediocrity, but it definitely is, nonetheless. In a way, that makes it even worse, since it's being brought forward, and having had the bar continually lowered for it to barely make it over said bar.

2. Do you have any sources for that fucking wall of text?

5. Well, given the fact that we're planning on buying over 10 for each Raptor we've bought, and the basic idea is to heavily rely on them, I can be forgiven for making that assumption.

3. Why wouldn't we? The F-35 is intended to do a variety of things, rather than the F-22's focus on killing enemy fighter aircraft.

Not to mention the fact that three branches are buying the F-35, while only the air force is buying the F-22.

6. See above. Vista Plane still doesn't make the cut. The simple fact is, designing a Jack of all Planes from scratch is an inherently shit idea. But don't take my word for it.

4. Why, should I listen to the sources you pulled out of your ass instead?

7. Again, we didn't seem to have a problem in Baghdad.

The US military of the 1970's could have won against Iraq, that's hardly much of an achievement.

tldr; not only are you wrong, you're also woefully misinformed, stop before you embarrass yourself.

1. There have been doubts as to MANPADS effectiveness expressed in this thread.

2. I figured it was common knowledge.

3. Assuming it can even get to the point where its combat ready. Maybe it'd have a chance if the only buyers are the American branches, or if all parties settled for variants with more differences, but neither are foreseeable possibilities. But even if one or the other or both happened, I'd still have misgivings about its combat effectiveness, especially in the CAS department.

4. I quoted a man who is very keen on historical precedent for effective Jack of All Planes, and cited an entire list of problems from the wiki article on the Vista Plane.

[Grenartia]

I mean the British has trouble with BF-109s in 1940.

However they had the advantage of defending rather than attacking, so they typically would win.

Especially during the Battle of Britain, in which German aircraft running on fumes were limited to about 15 minutes of actual combat time.

The point though is that I would imagine they'd have trouble against something from the future.

IIRC, the scenario was if the US attacked when it did, with 70s tech.

[Grenartia]

An interesting quote from the article which ultimately kills any hope of the F-35 being an effective CAS platform:

“Assuming that Iraq and Afghanistan are typical of future conflicts—and that is not a rock-solid assumption—then I think the A-10 type of close-air support weapon to be useful,” he says. “Fast movers cannot do the job as well. I’ve flown CAS in fast movers and it just isn’t going to happen in many situations. Speed in CAS is a detriment, not an asset.”

But maybe the F-35 was also designed with conventional conflicts against more modern militaries in mind. Not every war will be like Iraq and Afghanistan, and if wars like that continue couldn't they just keep using A-10s?

Not unless we fire up some factories and retool them to manufacture new Warthog parts.

Also, what I underlined isn't something only valid because of the nature of combat in Southwest Asia. Its valid because of the nature of ground combat, and of the nature of CAS as a concept. Loiter time. The faster you move, the harder it is to stay over one spot long enough to take out the threats in question. In this regard, the AC-130 and the A-10 clearly have an advantage over the Vista Plane.

[Grenartia]

An interesting quote from the article which ultimately kills any hope of the F-35 being an effective CAS platform:

“Assuming that Iraq and Afghanistan are typical of future conflicts—and that is not a rock-solid assumption—then I think the A-10 type of close-air support weapon to be useful,” he says. “Fast movers cannot do the job as well. I’ve flown CAS in fast movers and it just isn’t going to happen in many situations. Speed in CAS is a detriment, not an asset.”

Any fly-boy is going to boast that his shitty little CAS is the end all of low-intensity warfare.

Meanwhile, the M777A1, M119A3, and the M109A6 have provided more on-time and on-target fire support than any F or A-series.

Then explain why CAS exists in the first place. Explain why the A-10 is called for by name by ground pounders, than your precious arties.

[Husseinarti]

Any fly-boy is going to boast that his shitty little CAS is the end all of low-intensity warfare.

Meanwhile, the M777A1, M119A3, and the M109A6 have provided more on-time and on-target fire support than any F or A-series.

Then explain why CAS exists in the first place. Explain why the A-10 is called for by name by ground pounders, than your precious arties.

CAS exists because it can, for a few brief periods of time, delivery a shit load of ordinance in a short amount of time.

My DS was saved by F-15Es in 2006 during his deployment to Afghanistan, there was even the off chance that my father, who was deployed during that time as well, had possibly maintained those very F-15Es that dropped whatever ordinance that they dropped, most likely some kind of JDAM or Paveway.

While that is all and good, the United States Field Artillery has always been the fire support of choice for the grunt. That or mortars, however those are fake artillery. And all dummies.

Whenever it pours rain, shines bright, or is pitch black, the artilleryman and his canon will almost always be there for the grunt to call upon during their time of need. When there is a thunderstorm, aircraft may not be allowed to take off into the clouds, as they risk being lost due to environmental damage. Rain can also degrade the ability for the hot-shot, Top Gun fly-boy and his A-10 which seems to be what uninformed masses think is the mainstay of the fire support grunts get.

Aircraft need prepared bases to operate out of, they need a ratio of 15+ people to maintain them, they require millions of dollars per year to operate and they need specially trained personnel who take months to train properly to even be allowed to fly in combat, let along actually useful in battle. An artilleryman can be trained in 14 weeks, taught most positions of the gun in four weeks and can be an effective crew member in that time.

Maybe if you have even opened the book We Were Soldiers... And Young, you may account for the totally number of artillery rounds that Alpha and Charlie Battery, 1st Battalions, 21st Artillery fired was in total of over 10,000 rounds expended in during the first half of the Battle of Ia Drang vally in support of Hal Moore's 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment. Yes the aircraft helped, yes airborne rocket artillery helped, but during the entire battle, what saved those men were the M101 105mm howitzers. Even the North Vietnamese commander's knew the US Field Artillery was the major reason why the US held out though the battle.

The artillery is always going to be there for the soldier. Aircraft don't drop smoke, illumination, or WP. They can't pick up in less than a minute and relocate, set up in a minute and fire again. They need dozens of manhours per flight to maintain them, they eat up jet fuel etc.

The mission of the Field Artillery is to destroy, defeat, or disrupt the enemy with integrated fires to enable the maneuver commander to dominate in unified land operations. - Mission Statement of the Field Artillery Branch

[Puzikas]

Any fly-boy is going to boast that his shitty little CAS is the end all of low-intensity warfare.

Meanwhile, the M777A1, M119A3, and the M109A6 have provided more on-time and on-target fire support than any F or A-series.

Then explain why CAS exists in the first place. Explain why the A-10 is called for by name by ground pounders, than your precious arties.

I mean, its not like the infantryman has never called for artillery fire. Nope, not even once, ever. Every time the infantryman calls for firesupport hes hoping for aircraft, and instead he gets artillery as a middle finger from command to remind him how useless he is.

[Vitaphone Racing]

1. I wouldn't suggest there are any problems inherent to designing a multi-role aircraft, because there seems to be many multi-roles getting around today that don't suffer from inherent problems?


2. The fact that F-22 testing was not publicized in the same manner as the F-35, nor has any other fighter aircraft.


Just as well the plane is still in development.

3. Do you ever see people building a house on the side of the road, and then pull over and say "fuck, you pricks are incompetent! There's no fucking roof! No toilet! The floor is just concrete! My house is way better than this!" because you seem like the person who would do such a thing.


Uh huh

1. Not all multiroles are Jack of All Planes.

How about you start by defining what a "Jack of All Planes" is, because it's going to be very difficult for me to respond to your impromptu slang unless I know what it means.

Could it be possible that you're using the term to refer to a family of aircraft which is designed to engage both air and ground targets, operate from a variety of bases including carriers and offer the flexibility of being able to complete multiple different missions on one flight? Because that not only describes the F-35, but also aircraft like the Rafale, Eurofighter and Gripen. Do these have typical, inherent multi-role problems? The F-35 is actually not so different, you know.

2. So, straight out of your ass, then. I hope you at least keep your nails trimmed.

This is quite an amusing statement, as the previous post you made was accusing somebody else of intellectual dishonesty but here, you do this. Now, obviously I'm not pulling this "straight out of my ass" because that's literally impossible, and metaphorically unnecessary because the ATF program was kept much quieter than the JSF program during it's development. That much is common knowledge. So you're being quite hypocritical, no? This is a suggestion that you aren't debating anymore because you want to express your opinions about the F-35 or perhaps (gasp!) hear somebody else's opinion, but merely because you want to win the debate. I tend to frown on people like that, perhaps you should stop taking yourself so seriously.

3. A more apt analogy would be if they were building a mansion with bleeding-edge integrated tech, and then started sacrificing quality of design and cutting corners.

This misses the part where the aircraft is still in development. Based on your replies, you seem utterly and inexplicably unable to comprehend that the F-35 is not a finished product that has been deemed perfect, but rather an ongoing (albeit expensive) piece of work that is being continually refined. Until you can accept this, there's no point debating the faults of the aircraft with you because your concerns have no grounding in context whatsoever.

I think the problem here is twofold:

The first is that your understanding of aircraft and military aviation technology is a good thirty years old. You seem to have taken it from examples that are 30 years old, sourced information from people who flew planes and wrote policy thirty years ago, and modeled your aviation benchmarks on aircraft that are thirty years old. Unfortunately, your understanding is out of date because the game has moved on. Take the A-10 for example. In the 1980's (and yes, against shitty AA systems that were encountered in the middle east of recent), the A-10 was great. It was great because it could deliver ordnance very precisely for the era and because it was generally survivable. But this is no longer 1980. Now, any aircraft is able to precisely deliver ordnance because of advances in targeting and delivery technology. Now, the sophistication of AA systems on the ground mean the A-10 can no longer operate how it was designed for. Now, we have things like the AH-64. I could go further and explain how air-to-air combat is slowly evolving or how changing political climates mean we can get away with only having 200 true air superiority fighters, but I think I've illustrated my point clear enough. It's not possible to argue with you on this and ever see common ground if you're intent on arguing from the 1980's and insisting the world hasn't changed.

The second is that you have the understanding of project management that's typical of somebody who's never been involved in it before, particularly the sort of projects with several clients and multi-million dollar value. I can't really explain it much better than that. If you did, you wouldn't be harping on about faults while the aircraft is still being developed. I suggest you never pursue a career in engineering, construction or fabrication if you're not going to change your approach to these things. Has the JSF program been poorly managed? Yeah, it has. But shit happens and it often has no bearing on how well the finished product is delivered. Again, if you can't understand that, there's no point in arguing with you anymore.

[Urran]

F16 block 52C

F22

Ef2000

F15

Mig 35

On no particular order

[Ziegfeld Haven]

Funny to see "Rafale" and "Gripen" are not on the list.

So :
> If I have a little country, I would go for the "Gripen", cause multi-roles with low costs.
> If I'm a middle country, I would go for the "Rafale" cause best actual multi-roles.
> If I'm a big country, I would go for a mix F-22 + UCAV such as General Atomics Avenger, if not available then F-18 E/F cause G.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

There is this colour booklet that specifically instructed A-10 pilots to not aim for the entire front and the side turret of T-62's because at those angles vs those plates the 30 mm API round would fail completely to penetrate. T-72 Urals I presume would be entirely no go and if attempted would probably lead to a mission-killed Warthog from a MANPADS BTR instead.

An interesting quote from the article which ultimately kills any hope of the F-35 being an effective CAS platform:

“Assuming that Iraq and Afghanistan are typical of future conflicts—and that is not a rock-solid assumption—then I think the A-10 type of close-air support weapon to be useful,” he says. “Fast movers cannot do the job as well. I’ve flown CAS in fast movers and it just isn’t going to happen in many situations. Speed in CAS is a detriment, not an asset.”

And you missed the entire fucking point of why I posted the article to quote-mine two sentences.

[Grand Britannia]

People sure like hating on the F-35...

Is that like the hip thing to do these days.

[Atlantica]

People sure like hating on the F-35...

Is that like the hip thing to do these days.

But a part of what they say is actually true.

[Imperializt Russia]

There is this colour booklet that specifically instructed A-10 pilots to not aim for the entire front and the side turret of T-62's because at those angles vs those plates the 30 mm API round would fail completely to penetrate. T-72 Urals I presume would be entirely no go and if attempted would probably lead to a mission-killed Warthog from a MANPADS BTR instead.

An interesting quote from the article which ultimately kills any hope of the F-35 being an effective CAS platform:

“Assuming that Iraq and Afghanistan are typical of future conflicts—and that is not a rock-solid assumption—then I think the A-10 type of close-air support weapon to be useful,” he says. “Fast movers cannot do the job as well. I’ve flown CAS in fast movers and it just isn’t going to happen in many situations. Speed in CAS is a detriment, not an asset.”

It makes the mistake that to do CAS, you have to be on top of friendlies.
In modern mechanised warfare, you can't do that, because you will be killed. CAS is now achieved with PGMs and glide bombs. When your opponent is a farmer with an AK and ten dollars in his pocket, you can do CAS on top of friendly forces no problems.

Any fly-boy is going to boast that his shitty little CAS is the end all of low-intensity warfare.

Meanwhile, the M777A1, M119A3, and the M109A6 have provided more on-time and on-target fire support than any F or A-series.

Then explain why CAS exists in the first place. Explain why the A-10 is called for by name by ground pounders, than your precious arties.

A-10 is called for by name because it is a ground attack aircraft. Let's face it, it was built for the job it does. The requirements of the job its does have changed somewhat, such that it's now only able to carry out that job in ideal conditions - or carry out the modern requirements inefficiently.

Anecdotes exist that when British Apaches were deployed to Afghanistan and 2/3 Para's commanders saw what the aircraft were capable of, British troops started almost exclusively asking for Apache support.

[LA Cheese]

MH370

[Imperializt Russia]

People sure like hating on the F-35...

Is that like the hip thing to do these days.

But a part of what they say is actually true.

Yet horribly misconstrued, misrepresented and misunderstood.

[Ziegfeld Haven]

F-35 was supposed to be a low-cost aircraft (hi-low with F-22 as hi) with lower operating costs than aircrafts it is supposed to replace.
Could be a good aircraft in the future, but it already failed on what it was supposed to be.

[Imperializt Russia]

F-35 was supposed to be a low-cost aircraft (hi-low with F-22 as hi) with lower operating costs than aircrafts it is supposed to replace.
Could be a good aircraft in the future, but it already failed on what it was supposed to be.

It's not in full production yet. It hasn't failed.

[Novus America]

Then explain why CAS exists in the first place. Explain why the A-10 is called for by name by ground pounders, than your precious arties.

I mean, its not like the infantryman has never called for artillery fire. Nope, not even once, ever. Every time the infantryman calls for firesupport hes hoping for aircraft, and instead he gets artillery as a middle finger from command to remind him how useless he is.

Umm this is why this whole better/worse thing is not going anywhere. CAS and ARTY both have their place. It is not an either/or proposition. In combined arms you need a diverse and balanced force. Same with aircraft. I have no idea why we are arguing these apples to oranges arguments.


Same with aircraft. The best aircraft for one job is not always the best for the next. And even in CAS there is great diversity, fighting tanks supported by mobile SAMs in 1980s Germany is not the same as technicals in 2015 Iraq.

Hence you need a balanced force. The F-35 and A-10 are very different and not mutually exclusive. You can use both. And you can GASP use both together.

The F-35 does not have to suck for the A-10 to be useful nor does the A-10 have to suck for the F-35 to be useful. Not that hard to understand.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's just that the A-10 is so hampered by its own design. It was designed to do a thing that it can no longer do. We're having to find excuses to keep it around - like shooting up farmers on cliffsides, or militants in jeeps.

Its continued existence is impractical. By all means, keep it around until the F-35 hits full production and is widely in US service, it'd be daft not to. Just that when it happens, it doesn't have much reason to exist anymore.

[Novus America]

It's just that the A-10 is so hampered by its own design. It was designed to do a thing that it can no longer do. We're having to find excuses to keep it around - like shooting up farmers on cliffsides, or militants in jeeps.

Its continued existence is impractical. By all means, keep it around until the F-35 hits full production and is widely in US service, it'd be daft not to. Just that when it happens, it doesn't have much reason to exist anymore.

The B-52 no longer can do what it was designed to do. Just because something's role or mission has changed does not matter if it is still useful.

The Air National Guard in particular needs a low, slow, rugged, easily maintained plane that can use all types of fuel and all types of fields. The A-10 fits that bill. The F-35 does not. So why not just give all the A-10s to the Guard?

Otherwise the Guard has to buy this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron ... d_Scorpion

The F-35 is simply NOT what the Air Guard needs for certain roles. But why buy a whole new (inferior) plane when you already have the one you need?

The Guard cannot and will NOT exclusively adopt the F-35.

[Imperializt Russia]

The B-52 was adapted to launching cruise missiles by fitting a rotary launcher in its bomb bay. This modification made the aircraft extraordinarily useful in a new role.

You can't really adapt the A-10 to a new role because by the time you try, you'd redesigned the entire aircraft.
F-15 and F-16 can carry more missiles when acting as bomb trucks because they're not lofting several tonnes of gun, while the F-35 can truck those missiles closer and penetrate some layers of the enemy's air defence. The A-10 is squeezed out.

Give them to the ANG by all means, but their future in the Air Force is limited. Doesn't help that they're all like thirty years old, either.

[Novus America]

The B-52 was adapted to launching cruise missiles by fitting a rotary launcher in its bomb bay. This modification made the aircraft extraordinarily useful in a new role.

You can't really adapt the A-10 to a new role because by the time you try, you'd redesigned the entire aircraft.
F-15 and F-16 can carry more missiles when acting as bomb trucks because they're not lofting several tonnes of gun, while the F-35 can truck those missiles closer and penetrate some layers of the enemy's air defence. The A-10 is squeezed out.

Give them to the ANG by all means, but their future in the Air Force is limited. Doesn't help that they're all like thirty years old, either.

Well we agree here that its future is limited for frontline combat in a major war.

And then we are not much in disagreement. Just give them to the ANG. The USAF fly boys are happy, the ANG is happy, the A-10 fan boys (including those in congress) are happy. And it still can kill ISIS scum. Everybody wins. Well except ISIS scum.

The age is not so much an issue as the A-10 is simple and rugged. The B-52s are much older and do fine. The F-15 on the other hand has serious issues with the aging airframe. We are going to have to retire most of the older F-15s because they are literally falling apart. We really need a F-22B.