Advertisement
by Kubra » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:19 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:22 am
Kubra wrote:Let's not beat around the bush: the A-10 is probably cheaper compared to procuring a whole new fleet of budget CAS aircraft for its roles (at least it was the case a few years back) and *clearly* cheaper than foisting its roles onto the F-35.
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:23 am
Vassenor wrote:The New California Republic wrote:Context matters: the A-10s flew 8,100 sorties. 6 losses for 8,100 sorties. So the chance of an A-10 being lost on a sortie was 0.07%. I dunno about you, but I'd call that extremely low...
And the F-16C flew 13,500 sorties for 2 losses. 0.014% loss rate.
by Unstoppable Empire of Doom » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:24 am
by Kubra » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:24 am
And I mean let's be real if the question comes up of "what more does it need to be" the answer is simply "even cheaper".Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Kubra wrote:Let's not beat around the bush: the A-10 is probably cheaper compared to procuring a whole new fleet of budget CAS aircraft for its roles (at least it was the case a few years back) and *clearly* cheaper than foisting its roles onto the F-35.
It's also a glorified AGM-65 carrier. And these days a glorified SDB carrier.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:25 am
by Philjia » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:28 am
by Polish Prussian Commonwealth » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:34 am
The New California Republic wrote:Qhevak wrote:The A-10 is worthless for actual combat situations. It's slow moving SAM bait in any serious combat environment and the GAU-8 is dead weight against modern MBTs.
In all the combat missions that it has been involved in over the course of the past 30 years the A-10 losses to SAM systems have been extremely low.
And the GAU-8 would still be effective at getting a kill on an MBT if it hits the tracks or engine deck, or damaging/destroying combat-necessary features such as vision blocks or sensors. And it'd still be highly effective against other AFVs and support vehicles. If it was up against an MBT it would usually rely on the AGM-65 anyway.
by Risottia » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:35 am
-Ocelot- wrote:Can you elaborate on why you think this aircraft unit is bad? What should the DoD have done, instead?
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:35 am
Philjia wrote:very expensive variants.
by Kubra » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:39 am
The problem, again, a matter of the balance sheet. The A-10's are already paid up, it's just a matter of operating costs. You don't have to pay for entirely new ones and, even more importantly, data infrastructure in places that really lack it, which is of course where they end up having to be deployed. Meanwhile, paper wars with China and Russia have made the DOD a bit shy on pursuing this line of thinking in favour of, well, the F-35.Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Kubra wrote: And I mean let's be real if the question comes up of "what more does it need to be" the answer is simply "even cheaper".
Yes. You could replace the entire fleet with MQ-9's with 4x9 SDB II's and call it a day. The British have it in 3x9 Brimstone 2's already.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:41 am
Kubra wrote:The problem, again, a matter of the balance sheet. The A-10's are already paid up, it's just a matter of operating costs. You don't have to pay for entirely new ones and, even more importantly, data infrastructure in places that really lack it, which is of course where they end up having to be deployed.Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Yes. You could replace the entire fleet with MQ-9's with 4x9 SDB II's and call it a day. The British have it in 3x9 Brimstone 2's already.
by Cerata » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:42 am
Risottia wrote:Philjia wrote:The USAF's chief of staff has floated the idea of developing a new lightweight low-cost fighter to replace the air force's aging fleet of F-16 Fighting Falcons, and complement their higher end F-22 Raptors and F-35 Lightning IIs.
This is all well and good, but there was a project years ago that was supposed to deliver this kind of aircraft. It was called the Joint Strike Fighter program, and was intended to deliver an affordable plane that could cover the needs of not just the air force, but the army and navy too. Twenty years and about $1.5 trillion later, what they've actually produced is the F-35 Lightning II, which is actually three different and very expensive variants. The F-35 is not a failure as far as the performance of the aircraft itself is concerned; each variant does serve some need for the branch that will use it. What it is a failure of is management, as the project has run over time, over budget, and well outside the original brief. The question is, now the air force has to start from scratch, will they learn their lesson?
The F-35 is a botched aircraft because it was meant to be a compromise solution to way too many requirements. It is an over-engineered craft which cannot really excel at any of its intended tasks, it is merely good at most of them. It was completed because of the lack of alternative solutions and because too many nations had already spent way too much money on it. Really, you cannot expect a single aircraft, albeit in three different variants, to cover the whole range of operational tasks of F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, Tornado, A-10, A-6, F-14, EF-4, EA-18, F-111, F-117, AMX.
Now I expect the geniuses at the DoD to do exactly the same thing with the next fighter, because that's how they love to waste taxpayer's money for the benefit of Lockheed and Boeing.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:43 am
Cerata wrote:Risottia wrote:
The F-35 is a botched aircraft because it was meant to be a compromise solution to way too many requirements. It is an over-engineered craft which cannot really excel at any of its intended tasks, it is merely good at most of them. It was completed because of the lack of alternative solutions and because too many nations had already spent way too much money on it. Really, you cannot expect a single aircraft, albeit in three different variants, to cover the whole range of operational tasks of F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, Tornado, A-10, A-6, F-14, EF-4, EA-18, F-111, F-117, AMX.
Now I expect the geniuses at the DoD to do exactly the same thing with the next fighter, because that's how they love to waste taxpayer's money for the benefit of Lockheed and Boeing.
TBH, during the Cold War, the Russians did it better. Cheap, no more than a few million per airframe, fast, like the MIG-25, manueverable and feared, like the MIG-21, everything is better.
by Kubra » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:44 am
Yes, exactly. And? Is there a problem here?Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Kubra wrote: The problem, again, a matter of the balance sheet. The A-10's are already paid up, it's just a matter of operating costs. You don't have to pay for entirely new ones and, even more importantly, data infrastructure in places that really lack it, which is of course where they end up having to be deployed.
In the role of a glorified SDB carrier with a 2 ton deadweight yes.
by Vassenor » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:44 am
Kubra wrote:Let's not beat around the bush: the A-10 is probably cheaper compared to procuring a whole new fleet of budget CAS aircraft for its roles (at least it was the case a few years back) and *clearly* cheaper than foisting its roles onto the F-35.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:44 am
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:48 am
Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:The New California Republic wrote:In all the combat missions that it has been involved in over the course of the past 30 years the A-10 losses to SAM systems have been extremely low.
And the GAU-8 would still be effective at getting a kill on an MBT if it hits the tracks or engine deck, or damaging/destroying combat-necessary features such as vision blocks or sensors. And it'd still be highly effective against other AFVs and support vehicles. If it was up against an MBT it would usually rely on the AGM-65 anyway.
Yeah, against nations with basically no SAMs.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:48 am
Vassenor wrote:turboprop missile trucks like the A-29
by Polish Prussian Commonwealth » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:50 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:52 am
by Kubra » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:57 am
Yes. And? Is that a problem? I mean, it's cheaper, isn't it?
by The Federal Government of Iowa » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:57 am
by Polish Prussian Commonwealth » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:58 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:i really don't think iraq or yugoslavia are shining examples of peak air-defense networks as seen in peer to peer conflicts.
A-10's problem is rlly the manned thing and the ECM dating from 1980's thing. And the no defence vs MANPADS thing.
Basically you're putting a man in the plane flying at stupidly low altitudes where he can be shot at by everybody, yet not providing him with the means to defend himself.
by Polish Prussian Commonwealth » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:58 am
The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Yeah, the F-35 is trying to be too many things at once. The USAF should really just focus on its 6th Gen fighter which they've been playing with for a while. The F-22 is sufficient for air superiority roles right now, and the F16/18 and the A-10 are all still great for ground pounding. But seriously, next-gen or new A-10 equivalent when?? We need a new one! omg how about a stealth A-10? I would cry tears of joy XD
All things aside, I think we should give the Pentagon a little bit of a break. This is their first attempt at a VTOL aircraft of this sort, and there's a learning curve for sure.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhiris, Big Eyed Animation, Elwher, Ethel mermania, Ineva, Kreushia, Plan Neonie, Talibanada, The Vooperian Union, Trump Almighty, Tungstan, Zetaopalatopia
Advertisement