NationStates

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:That turret and TOW missile system sure didn't do badly in the flat deserts east of Kuwait did it?

also isn't that funny pentagon wars clip just wrong

the bradley was meant from the start as an IFV, was it not? As a response to the BMP-1?

Lauzanne wrote:

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Hm, fair point. I do still think the F-35 is trying to accomplish too much at the same time. We should have more dedicated ground pound craft, air superiority craft, and other specialized craft for whatever niche they need it for.

Thing is, PGM's are becoming king for ground pounding, look at the SDB and JDAM, made so its not throwing more at the ground, it throws things far more accurately. Should they have not gone with three different versions? Probably, but hindsight is 20/20. Chances are most of the cost came from the B versions which if memory serves right is the STOVL version, since carrier based versions of regular fighters generally aren't super drastic chances (Rafale M, Su-33) but that STOVL.. hoo boy.

To be honest though thr ASF role can be filled by a multirole just as well, since the computers and sensors have gotten so good, but for a dedicated ground pounder? Mavericks and the like can do pretty well, and if you can have something that carries the same missiles the A-10 can but it's far less suceptible to air defence and it's faster? I'd call that a win.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Kubra wrote: It's funny because in testing for a new APC the israeli's *did* slap a bunch of ERA on the front and junked the turret, before binning the thing and settling on converting tank hulls for the job. It was a proto-namer in the *literal* sense.

Tbh IDF faced a lot of close range actions from insurgents and Syrians and there wasn't much long range combat in Lebanon for example in the 80's. So the Bradley with its turret and the long range TOW missile system was literally unsuited for Israeli needs. What they needed was a heavily protected vehicle capable of resisting close range attacks from multiple angles and they got it in the Namer.
Meanwhile in the flat deserts east of Kuwait.

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:That turret and TOW missile system sure didn't do badly in the flat deserts east of Kuwait did it?

No, what is close air support? Define the term as you understand it.

Ah. Close air support is hanging around an area (or being ready to go at any moment) so that when infantry units call you in to help bomb/shoot up an enemy position or target you are ready to do so.

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:

Lauzanne wrote:
Thing is, PGM's are becoming king for ground pounding, look at the SDB and JDAM, made so its not throwing more at the ground, it throws things far more accurately. Should they have not gone with three different versions? Probably, but hindsight is 20/20. Chances are most of the cost came from the B versions which if memory serves right is the STOVL version, since carrier based versions of regular fighters generally aren't super drastic chances (Rafale M, Su-33) but that STOVL.. hoo boy.

To be honest though thr ASF role can be filled by a multirole just as well, since the computers and sensors have gotten so good, but for a dedicated ground pounder? Mavericks and the like can do pretty well, and if you can have something that carries the same missiles the A-10 can but it's far less suceptible to air defence and it's faster? I'd call that a win.

Hmm, I suppose. Would you say the F-35 fits that role? If not, what does?

Kubra wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Tbh IDF faced a lot of close range actions from insurgents and Syrians and there wasn't much long range combat in Lebanon for example in the 80's. So the Bradley with its turret and the long range TOW missile system was literally unsuited for Israeli needs. What they needed was a heavily protected vehicle capable of resisting close range attacks from multiple angles and they got it in the Namer.
Meanwhile in the flat deserts east of Kuwait.

So the sort of engagements the US often had to fight in the occupation of Iraq, no?

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

Kubra wrote: It's funny because in testing for a new APC the israeli's *did* slap a bunch of ERA on the front and junked the turret, before binning the thing and settling on converting tank hulls for the job. It was a proto-namer in the *literal* sense.

because the circumstances the israelis face are identical to what the OG bradley was designed to face obviously

Kubra wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Tbh IDF faced a lot of close range actions from insurgents and Syrians and there wasn't much long range combat in Lebanon for example in the 80's. So the Bradley with its turret and the long range TOW missile system was literally unsuited for Israeli needs. What they needed was a heavily protected vehicle capable of resisting close range attacks from multiple angles and they got it in the Namer.
Meanwhile in the flat deserts east of Kuwait.

So the sort of engagements the US often had to fight in the occupation of Iraq, no?

Kubra wrote:

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:because the circumstances the israelis face are identical to what the OG bradley was designed to face obviously

Tut tut, can we really know how the Bradley would have faced against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

Kubra wrote:

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:because the circumstances the israelis face are identical to what the OG bradley was designed to face obviously

Tut tut, can we really know how the Bradley would have faced against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

Lauzanne wrote:

Mousters wrote: exactly! It's tough to fit all those capabilities into one aircraft. Problems are destined to pop up

Not really. The F-16 is a good multirole that can do bombing, ATGM work, ASF and CAP. Aircraft design has gotten pretty dang good

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

Kubra wrote: Tut tut, can we really know how the Bradley would have faced against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

i think we can apply that to 90% of american military equipment at this point.

Mousters wrote:

Lauzanne wrote:
Not really. The F-16 is a good multirole that can do bombing, ATGM work, ASF and CAP. Aircraft design has gotten pretty dang good

you do make a point

Lauzanne wrote:

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:i think we can apply that to 90% of american military equipment at this point.

Given how the Bradley was pasting T-72's and other Soviet export tech (similar to what the WarPac got) up and down Iraq, yeah it would have done well lol

Mousters wrote:

Lauzanne wrote:
Not really. The F-16 is a good multirole that can do bombing, ATGM work, ASF and CAP. Aircraft design has gotten pretty dang good

you do make a point

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

Kubra wrote:So the sort of engagements the US often had to fight in the occupation of Iraq, no?

The US was in Iraq during the 80s?

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Kubra wrote: Tut tut, can we really know how the Bradley would have faced against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

The Gulf War did make the Soviet General Staff sit bolt-upright and just a bit concerned tbh.

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

Kubra wrote: Tut tut, can we really know how the Bradley would have faced against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

if we talking about that i think we can apply that to a shitload of american military equipment at this point. How can we know how the A-10 would've faired against what it was designed for, since the berlin wall unfortunately came down during development?

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

Mousters wrote:you do make a point

literally every single fighter since korea can ground pound.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Ah. Close air support is hanging around an area (or being ready to go at any moment) so that when infantry units call you in to help bomb/shoot up an enemy position or target you are ready to do so.

If you could deliver weapons on that area with complete impunity by flying too high for SHORADS and far enough away that you are not detectable by any radar is that not an advantage?
Well I give you a 100 km glide range multi-sensor homing bomb.

Lauzanne wrote:

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Hmm, I suppose. Would you say the F-35 fits that role? If not, what does?

I would say that given what it has and what it can do, it's most definitely a good multirole. Excellent radar with a low probability of detection (DECADES ahead of what the Russians have) with the capability of PGM's and insane levels of data-sharing with other planes. Hell, Israel has currently been raining bombs across the Syrian countryside and the S-300's and Pantsirs can't keep up (granted, the Israelis did do their own ECM modification but still) which is honestly a good sign.

Kubra wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:The Gulf War did make the Soviet General Staff sit bolt-upright and just a bit concerned tbh.

Sure, but as you'll recall they had a few problems bigger than the US invading them.

Kubra wrote:

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:
The US was in Iraq during the 80s?

I wasn't aware the US occupied Iraq in the 80's.

Senkaku wrote: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 wrote:Alright, fair enough. The only issue is that the F-35 can't carry much without sacrificing its stealth aspect. Then again, I guess they would just bring in the B-2s if they really needed to.
As much as I like the A-10 and AC-130, it does seem like they're now considered old tech. Dang.

Lauzanne wrote:

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:i think we can apply that to 90% of american military equipment at this point.

Given how the Bradley was pasting T-72's and other Soviet export tech (similar to what the WarPac got) up and down Iraq, yeah it would have done well lol

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

Kubra wrote: So the sort of engagements the US often had to fight in the occupation of Iraq, no?

Probs why the US Army trialled the Namer in 2012.

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:If you could deliver weapons on that area with complete impunity by flying too high for SHORADS and far enough away that you are not detectable by any radar is that not an advantage?
Well I give you a 100 km glide range multi-sensor homing bomb.

Damn, I didn't know that existed. Holy crap. I'm starting to realize I'm rusty as heck when it comes to my military knowledge. This is what happens when you only ever read about WWII military tech XD

Lauzanne wrote:
I would say that given what it has and what it can do, it's most definitely a good multirole. Excellent radar with a low probability of detection (DECADES ahead of what the Russians have) with the capability of PGM's and insane levels of data-sharing with other planes. Hell, Israel has currently been raining bombs across the Syrian countryside and the S-300's and Pantsirs can't keep up (granted, the Israelis did do their own ECM modification but still) which is honestly a good sign.

Alright, fair enough. The only issue is that the F-35 can't carry much without sacrificing its stealth aspect. Then again, I guess they would just bring in the B-2s if they really needed to.
As much as I like the A-10 and AC-130, it does seem like they're now considered old tech. Dang.