USAF realises F-35 is not what they set out to make

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The 2 ton deadweight and the pilot on the plane, and the obsolete ECM systems.

Yes. And? Is that a problem? I mean, it's cheaper, isn't it?
I suppose what this question really comes down to is: what war are you fighting in your head?

The cheaper option is one where you don't have to risk losing a pilot because your hydraulics systems got fucked up.

[Kubra]

turboprop missile trucks like the A-29

That's nonsense. A fleet of drones:
A: Takes the manned portion out of the equation.
B: Carries far more potent PGM's.
C: Has a modern ECM system.
D: Flies at 30,000 feet.
None of which a Brazilian turboprop could do.

Gonna have to concur here. Furthermore, unit and operating costs aren't significantly cheaper here, but drones can be lost without a pilot getting at best ransomed and at worst beheaded for a propaganda video.

[Mousters]

Yes. And? Is that a problem? I mean, it's cheaper, isn't it?
I suppose what this question really comes down to is: what war are you fighting in your head?

The cheaper option is one where you don't have to risk losing a pilot because your hydraulics systems got fucked up.

She was in an A-10 which is such a fucking versatile plane lol

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

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.

The A-10 has proven itself to be a really very survivable aircraft. Those things can be shot at a heck ton and still make it home alive. There's a reason those engines are set so far apart.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

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.

new technology is expensive. in other news, water is wet.

Bah! Who cares about the expense so long as the new toy looks sexy like the F-22

[The New California Republic]

MiG-25 has a turning circle measured in Texas's at mach 2.5, its operational max speed.

Yes, the West thought for decades that its operational speed was mach 3.2, on the basis of objects they tracked on radar at that speed. It made them think they routinely operated at those speeds. Turned out they were test drones.

---

Yeah, against nations with basically no SAMs.

No not really.

i really don't think iraq or yugoslavia are shining examples of peak air-defense networks as seen in peer to peer conflicts.

Iraq didn't have "basically no SAMs", sorry. It had ~16,000 surface-to-air missiles, made up of about 20+ SA-2 batteries, 25+ SA-3 batteries, 36+ SA-6 batteries, 20+ SA-8 batteries, 50+ Rolands, 400 SA-9s, 200 SA-13s, 6,500 Grails, and hundreds of Gremlins. So don't try to say that Iraq had "basically no SAMs", as it is patently untrue. Added to that it had thousands of AA guns.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

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.

The A-10 has proven itself to be a really very survivable aircraft. Those things can be shot at a heck ton and still make it home alive. There's a reason those engines are set so far apart.

it hasn't 'proven' anything at all though

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I suppose what this question really comes down to is: what war are you fighting in your head?

The SCS-Taiwanese one. In which the A-10 isn't really useful other than as an SDB carrier... which the B-2/F-35 could do and be almost 100% survivable.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

The A-10 has proven itself to be a really very survivable aircraft. Those things can be shot at a heck ton and still make it home alive. There's a reason those engines are set so far apart.

it hasn't 'proven' anything at all though

It's been in service for years and has seen many missions, it's proven much.

[Kubra]

Yes. And? Is that a problem? I mean, it's cheaper, isn't it?
I suppose what this question really comes down to is: what war are you fighting in your head?

The cheaper option is one where you don't have to risk losing a pilot because your hydraulics systems got fucked up.

Nonsense. A single pilot and A-10 lost, had they instead been lost? A couple million maybe for the pilot, and the A-10? Theoretically little, insofar as it's already paid off a good deal of its value. Maybe stick its costs into whatever replaces it, which is a small or giant waste depending on the replacement.
A brand spanking new Reaper, only 5 years of service to its name? 19 million. Ouch. Just wait until the taxpapers associations back home get wind of this.

I suppose what this question really comes down to is: what war are you fighting in your head?

The SCS-Taiwanese one. In which the A-10 isn't really useful other than as an SDB carrier... which the B-2/F-35 could do and be almost 100% survivable.

So an imminently theoretical war? A fulda gap scenario?

[The New California Republic]

So an imminently theoretical war? A fulda gap scenario?

As an aside I was always amused by the Fulda Gap thing, it seemed like a colossal red herring, as so much emphasis was placed upon it that in reality the Gap would have been so heavily mined and shelled that anything trying to take the corridor would have been annihilated.

[Kubra]

So an imminently theoretical war? A fulda gap scenario?

As an aside I was always amused by the Fulda Gap thing, it seemed like a colossal red herring, as so much emphasis was placed upon it that in reality the Gap would have been so heavily mined and shelled that anything trying to take the corridor would have been annihilated.

Sure, but good god what fun it must have been to be the armchair staff assigned to sitting around a table and roleplaying that war *for a salary*.
I mean that's what we're doing here, but I sure as shit ain't being paid for it, anyone else?

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

it hasn't 'proven' anything at all though

It's been in service for years and has seen many missions, it's proven much.

"many missions" against people whose AA consisted of AKs pointing at the sky maybe

[Kubra]

It's been in service for years and has seen many missions, it's proven much.

"many missions" against people whose AA consisted of AKs pointing at the sky maybe

Iraq didn't have "basically no SAMs", sorry. It had ~16,000 surface-to-air missiles, made up of about 20+ SA-2 batteries, 25+ SA-3 batteries, 36+ SA-6 batteries, 20+ SA-8 batteries, 50+ Rolands, 400 SA-9s, 200 SA-13s, 6,500 Grails, and hundreds of Gremlins. So don't try to say that Iraq had "basically no SAMs", as it is patently untrue. Added to that it had thousands of AA guns.

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

"many missions" against people whose AA consisted of AKs pointing at the sky maybe

Iraq didn't have "basically no SAMs", sorry. It had ~16,000 surface-to-air missiles, made up of about 20+ SA-2 batteries, 25+ SA-3 batteries, 36+ SA-6 batteries, 20+ SA-8 batteries, 50+ Rolands, 400 SA-9s, 200 SA-13s, 6,500 Grails, and hundreds of Gremlins. So don't try to say that Iraq had "basically no SAMs", as it is patently untrue. Added to that it had thousands of AA guns.

^ this

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

MiG-25 has a turning circle measured in Texas's at mach 2.5, its operational max speed.

Yes, the West thought for decades that its operational speed was mach 3.2, on the basis of objects they tracked on radar at that speed. It made them think they routinely operated at those speeds. Turned out they were test drones.

---

i really don't think iraq or yugoslavia are shining examples of peak air-defense networks as seen in peer to peer conflicts.

Iraq didn't have "basically no SAMs", sorry. It had ~16,000 surface-to-air missiles, made up of about 20+ SA-2 batteries, 25+ SA-3 batteries, 36+ SA-6 batteries, 20+ SA-8 batteries, 50+ Rolands, 400 SA-9s, 200 SA-13s, 6,500 Grails, and hundreds of Gremlins. So don't try to say that Iraq had "basically no SAMs", as it is patently untrue. Added to that it had thousands of AA guns.

okay but did it ever use those in any way that was remotely effective
because generally the impression i got was that iraqi SAMs were hilariously ineffective for what they were slinging.

[The New California Republic]

okay but did it ever use those in any way that was remotely effective
because generally the impression i got was that iraqi SAMs were hilariously ineffective for what they were slinging.

It was only ineffective because the Coalition forces threw huge amounts of resources to SEAD and EW support.

[Polish Prussian Commonwealth]

okay but did it ever use those in any way that was remotely effective
because generally the impression i got was that iraqi SAMs were hilariously ineffective for what they were slinging.

It was only ineffective because the Coalition forces threw huge amounts of resources to SEAD and EW support.

okay so a-10s are only useful when you can spam SEAD and EW with impunity

[Qhevak]

okay but did it ever use those in any way that was remotely effective

No - Iraqi air defences were mainly focused on defending vs Iran, Syria and Israel which meant huge gaps in coverage for forces headed from Saudi Arabia. They were also using outdated equipment, centralized so that individual launch sites couldn't network with each other without passing info up to their commanders, and most operators were so terrified of anti-radar missiles that they launched their SAMs practically unguided.

[The New California Republic]

It was only ineffective because the Coalition forces threw huge amounts of resources to SEAD and EW support.

okay so a-10s are any aircraft is only useful when you can spam SEAD and EW with impunity

Fixed that for you.

[Kubra]

okay but did it ever use those in any way that was remotely effective

No - Iraqi air defences were mainly focused on defending vs Iran, Syria and Israel which meant huge gaps in coverage for forces headed from Saudi Arabia. They were also using outdated equipment, centralized so that individual launch sites couldn't network with each other without passing info up to their commanders, and most operators were so terrified of anti-radar missiles that they launched their SAMs practically unguided.

In fairness, being a little guy invaded by the US and company is a basically an invasion of space aliens.

[Senkaku]

I wonder what the half-life of the F-16 fleet is (as in I wonder when literally half of them will be grounded or have fallen out of the sky because they’ve gotten so old and worn out lol)

[The Federal Government of Iowa]

okay so a-10s are any aircraft is only useful when you can spam SEAD and EW with impunity

Fixed that for you.

It was only ineffective because the Coalition forces threw huge amounts of resources to SEAD and EW support.

okay so a-10s are only useful when you can spam SEAD and EW with impunity

Also this. Any aircraft flying at relatively low altitude (or any altitude really) is in danger of effective AA stuff, don't just hate on the A-10.
Also, stealth A-10 equivalent how about that XD

[Qhevak]

No - Iraqi air defences were mainly focused on defending vs Iran, Syria and Israel which meant huge gaps in coverage for forces headed from Saudi Arabia. They were also using outdated equipment, centralized so that individual launch sites couldn't network with each other without passing info up to their commanders, and most operators were so terrified of anti-radar missiles that they launched their SAMs practically unguided.

In fairness, being a little guy invaded by the US and company is a basically an invasion of space aliens.

I mean yeah (though arguably the Iraqi military's extreme overcentralization hurt them even harder than technical inferiority). And if space aliens invaded us I'd bet their obsolete ground attack starfighters would be perfectly effective too.

[The New California Republic]

[...] most operators were so terrified of anti-radar missiles that they launched their SAMs practically unguided.

It explains why there has been a lot of emphasis since Desert Storm on decoys to seduce the seeker in the likes of HARM and ALARM, decoys like the Gazetchik, SRTZ-2TM, KRTZ-125-2M, and OU-1; as well as emphasis on EmCon, phased array radars with low sidelobes, SAM system hybridization, mobility, decoy vehicles, etc.