NationStates

Kubra wrote:

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Probs why the US Army trialled the Namer in 2012.

Whoopsie, missed a post.
Anyways, yes, that they did, before ultimately settling on having troops just use the new MRAP's (dubious move, given the programmes cost).
In any case, the point still stands: the Bradley was not terribly suited to the conflict it really saw its longest combat record in.

...and? My point is that it's stupid to shit on the Bradley's designers for, y'know. Not planning for something they literally had no plans of doing. I'm certain the BMP-1 and -2 did wonderfully in the Chechen Wars.

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

Lauzanne wrote:
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

tbf I really don't think the invasion of Iraq is a valid model for P2P conflict. although yeah bradley did kick ass during the invasion.

Majority of WarPac countries had similar tanks (55's, 62's and 72M's) and the BMP-2 was even less protected than the Bradley. IIRC Iraq was considered a near peer at the time, hence why the whole thing was taken VERY seriously.

Remember: whole lot more WarPac with same gear in Eastern Europe than Russkies.

Lauzanne wrote:

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:tbf I really don't think the invasion of Iraq is a valid model for P2P conflict. although yeah bradley did kick ass during the invasion.

Majority of WarPac countries had similar tanks (55's, 62's and 72M's) and the BMP-2 was even less protected than the Bradley. IIRC Iraq was considered a near peer at the time, hence why the whole thing was taken VERY seriously.

Remember: whole lot more WarPac with same gear in Eastern Europe than Russkies.

True, true.

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

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

Neither was I! I had no clue that US planners were fortune-tellers and thought "oh yes we're going to be fighting COIN for a few decades let's make an IFV designed for peer-to-peer anyway lmao!".

Its allies had been fighting COIN conflicts for decades. It lost a COIN conflict in this timeframe. It made the USSR lose a COIN conflict in this timeframe.
I mean, forget fortune-tellers, find a newspaper-reader.

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

Kubra wrote: Whoopsie, missed a post.
Anyways, yes, that they did, before ultimately settling on having troops just use the new MRAP's (dubious move, given the programmes cost).
In any case, the point still stands: the Bradley was not terribly suited to the conflict it really saw its longest combat record in.

...and? My point is that it's stupid to shit on the Bradley's designers for, y'know. Not planning for something they literally had no plans of doing. I'm certain the BMP-1 and -2 did wonderfully in the Chechen Wars.

Adding to this: America didnt know it would be asymmetrically fighting and their sole threat at the time was the WarPac, a near peer. There were attempts to replace the bradley for pure COIN and it ended up being like 84 tons lmao

Peer to peer fighting in 2020. Notice all the PGM's and loitering munitions, notice also how an entire motor-rifle division basically vanished into wrecks thanks to the aforementioned PGM's.

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

Kubra wrote: Whoopsie, missed a post.
Anyways, yes, that they did, before ultimately settling on having troops just use the new MRAP's (dubious move, given the programmes cost).
In any case, the point still stands: the Bradley was not terribly suited to the conflict it really saw its longest combat record in.

...and? My point is that it's stupid to shit on the Bradley's designers for, y'know. Not planning for something they literally had no plans of doing. I'm certain the BMP-1 and -2 did wonderfully in the Chechen Wars.

By the same measure, we can't really judge most equipment developed by the US, since very little of it up until the last couple decades was designed for such a conflict.
Perhaps it makes a good case for the A-10, for not having at all been designed for such a conflict but having carved out the least offensive niche. It'd be nonsense, but isn't that the way we are now going?

Lauzanne wrote:

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote: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

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.

The A-10 is a good CAS platform for what it was but there's newer planes that can do the role way cheaper (see the Super Tucano, pretty much a weaponised Cessna)

The AC-130 can't be considered a "normal" aircraft simply cause what it does is so specialised. It's a very niche plane and is more for SOF or COIN work, since it's the size of a house and about as fast against a near peer it would get decimated in open combat.

Yeah lol
The thing is the A-10 is cheap, relatively fast, quiet, and can take a hit or two. The things the A-10 shoot is also relatively cheap. So if money is of concern, then the A-10 wins ig

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.

When it comes down to bombing poor brown children in the Middle East yeah its great sure.

But if an A-10 was to fight an enemy with parity ADA it'd be killed in droves.

You seem like a smart and well-read individual, how badly did NATO think their A-10 losses would be in a Cold-War-gone-hot in Europe? You want to explain that to me?

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:

Lauzanne wrote:
The A-10 is a good CAS platform for what it was but there's newer planes that can do the role way cheaper (see the Super Tucano, pretty much a weaponised Cessna)

The AC-130 can't be considered a "normal" aircraft simply cause what it does is so specialised. It's a very niche plane and is more for SOF or COIN work, since it's the size of a house and about as fast against a near peer it would get decimated in open combat.

Yeah lol
The thing is the A-10 is cheap, relatively fast, quiet, and can take a hit or two. The things the A-10 shoot is also relatively cheap. So if money is of concern, then the A-10 wins ig

The A-10 is not quiet or fast lmao

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:

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

It's affecting Russian military thinking to this day, what with their obsession with anti-access and ever shinier SHORADS platforms.

Oh yeah, true that. In line with the "invasion of the space aliens" analogy, it's so far the only line of thinking that could *theoretically* oppose a full on US invasion without going innawoods.
you know how it is, no one actually wants to go innawoods, because it fucking sucks in there and more seriously leaves the country a smoldering wreck, whether or not you get rid of the americans.

Kubra wrote:

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:...and? My point is that it's stupid to shit on the Bradley's designers for, y'know. Not planning for something they literally had no plans of doing. I'm certain the BMP-1 and -2 did wonderfully in the Chechen Wars.

By the same measure, we can't really judge most equipment developed by the US, since very little of it up until the last couple decades was designed for such a conflict.
Perhaps it makes a good case for the A-10, for not having at all been designed for such a conflict but having carved out the least offensive niche. It'd be nonsense, but isn't that the way we are now going?

I mean duh. A plane's a plane? It can sling bombs. Although iirc most of the planes in the area are just hordes of F-16s anyway so...

also you're acting as if the bradley can't be modified to fit COIN operations. which it was and which it did alright in, iirc-correct me if i'm wrong. It was the light vehicles like humvees that had the big issues.

Husseinarti 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.

When it comes down to bombing poor brown children in the Middle East yeah its great sure.

But if an A-10 was to fight an enemy with parity ADA it'd be killed in droves.

You seem like a smart and well-read individual, how badly did NATO think their A-10 losses would be in a Cold-War-gone-hot in Europe? You want to explain that to me?

didn't they expect the a-10s to be wiped within a few weeks

Mousters wrote:

The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Yeah lol
The thing is the A-10 is cheap, relatively fast, quiet, and can take a hit or two. The things the A-10 shoot is also relatively cheap. So if money is of concern, then the A-10 wins ig

The A-10 is not quiet or fast lmao

Oh no, it's quiet. It's surprisingly quiet. I also said relatively fast.

Joint Strike Fighter was mostly about getting funds for the war in Iraq from allies before the USA lost those same allies.
Of course it has now been botched. It was always going to be botched.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Peer to peer fighting in 2020. Notice all the PGM's and loitering munitions, notice also how an entire motor-rifle division basically vanished into wrecks thanks to the aforementioned PGM's.

That Pat Hand is looking right at the aircraft...

---

Husseinarti wrote:how badly did NATO think their A-10 losses would be in a Cold-War-gone-hot in Europe? You want to explain that to me?

Given that most NATO airfields would likely have been smouldering craters in such an event...

There's a reason that us Brits decided that dispersing the Harriers into remote forest clearings would be a good idea.

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

A point to be made here: the soviets were terrible folks to buy from, absolutely terrible, like buying norinco guns off a shady Chinese telecommunications company. As the only efficient and streamlined industry in the whole soviet union, god damn could those motherfuckers cheat you at a profit.
For instance, you know those T-72's the iraqi's had? T-72M's. Simple steel armour, no laser rangefinders, older targeting computers, ammunition the soviets had been using for training purposes, so on and so forth.
God help you if you bought MiG's off them. The export engines were unreliable as all hell, which meant you had to stay in the soviets good books to get replacement parts. Capitalist marketing strategy: keep acquisition costs low, then charge out the ass on maintenance.

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

Kubra wrote: By the same measure, we can't really judge most equipment developed by the US, since very little of it up until the last couple decades was designed for such a conflict.
Perhaps it makes a good case for the A-10, for not having at all been designed for such a conflict but having carved out the least offensive niche. It'd be nonsense, but isn't that the way we are now going?

I mean duh. A plane's a plane? It can sling bombs. Although iirc most of the planes in the area are just hordes of F-16s anyway so...

also you're acting as if the bradley can't be modified to fit COIN operations. which it was and which it did alright in, iirc-correct me if i'm wrong. It was the light vehicles like humvees that had the big issues.

Nope, the bradley and the humvee were largely phased out in favour of the new MRAP's. Frankly, I kind of think it would have been better to just modify the Bradley, because developing and fielding the MRAP's went to the cost of around 50 billion iirc and they're *already* looking to make a new gen of em.
Folks can say what they will of aging F-16's, they are god damn value on investment.

China is the enemy or rather- the most militarily strong and capable in terms of rivalry with the US on the world stage. Any newer US aircraft should primarily be designed to fight against the best China could feasibly produce, now that the Soviet Union is out of the way. Russia wants to be like what the Soviets were but sad for them- they just won't. There is just not much potential for Russia to get any stronger or richer than it already is. Whilst China can safely be assumed to be the rival power now and going forward. Russia looks destined to be China's sidekick by default, and will go along with what China wants just to spite the US anyways.

Only the China/Russia bloc is worth fighting against conventionally in terms of maintaining some parity. Russia wouldn't be a relevant player in my mind, were it not for the newer weapons/radars they're still producing and selling on a wide scale globally.

Kubra wrote:

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:
I mean duh. A plane's a plane? It can sling bombs. Although iirc most of the planes in the area are just hordes of F-16s anyway so...

also you're acting as if the bradley can't be modified to fit COIN operations. which it was and which it did alright in, iirc-correct me if i'm wrong. It was the light vehicles like humvees that had the big issues.

Nope, the bradley and the humvee were largely phased out in favour of the new MRAP's. Frankly, I kind of think it would have been better to just modify the Bradley, because developing and fielding the MRAP's went to the cost of around 50 billion iirc and they're *already* looking to make a new gen of em.
Folks can say what they will of aging F-16's, they are god damn value on investment.

another reason for my mr*p hate. thank you.

i came here for silver and left with gold.

Kubra wrote:For instance, you know those T-72's the iraqi's had? T-72M's. Simple steel armour, no laser rangefinders, older targeting computers, ammunition the soviets had been using for training purposes, so on and so forth.

God help you if you bought MiG's off them. The export engines were unreliable as all hell, which meant you had to stay in the soviets good books to get replacement parts. Capitalist marketing strategy: keep acquisition costs low, then charge out the ass on maintenance.

They did the same with the likes of the radars and ECM on the aircraft they exported too. Just about the only area where they didn't really cut corners was the SAMs and the SPAAGs, as those required very precise features to even work, to the extent that they couldn't make monkey model versions of them. It would have cost them more to make a monkey model version of them, rather than saving money.

Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:

Kubra wrote: Nope, the bradley and the humvee were largely phased out in favour of the new MRAP's. Frankly, I kind of think it would have been better to just modify the Bradley, because developing and fielding the MRAP's went to the cost of around 50 billion iirc and they're *already* looking to make a new gen of em.
Folks can say what they will of aging F-16's, they are god damn value on investment.

another reason for my mr*p hate. thank you.

i came here for silver and left with gold.

I mean they do they're job well, but for 50 billion I expect them to give me a blowjob too.

The New California Republic wrote:

Kubra wrote:For instance, you know those T-72's the iraqi's had? T-72M's. Simple steel armour, no laser rangefinders, older targeting computers, ammunition the soviets had been using for training purposes, so on and so forth.

God help you if you bought MiG's off them. The export engines were unreliable as all hell, which meant you had to stay in the soviets good books to get replacement parts. Capitalist marketing strategy: keep acquisition costs low, then charge out the ass on maintenance.

They did the same with the likes of the radars and ECM on the aircraft they exported too. Just about the only area where they didn't really cut corners was the SAMs and the SPAAGs, as those required very precise features to even work, to the extent that they couldn't make monkey model versions of them. It would have cost them more to make a monkey model version of them, rather than saving money.

Man you know the soviets had a selected few products that they could actually export to the civilian market and I'm super curious of they got monkey modelled
like imagine stepping into one of their laser eye surgery clinics but instead of getting their trained clinical staff you get ivan ivanov ivanovitch with a laser pointer

A-Series-Of-Tubes wrote:Australia has none. We have two of the Canberra class, which look like small carriers because the Spanish demanded money to take the ski-jump out of the design. Or maybe the Australian government doesn't want these landing-ships appearing on the West Pacific theatre as Aircraft Carriers, until there's a reason to do so ... it would signal the start of a Naval Arms Race.
Does anyone know why the US persists with flat decks on carriers, when so many other countries opt for the ski-jump?

Because the US has catapults.

You don't need a ski-jump if you have a catapult.

Mousters wrote:this went from F-35s to A-10s-ish to Bradley fighting vehicles lol

Because the F-35 has become the Pentagon Wars of today.

Lauzanne wrote:

Mousters wrote:this went from F-35s to A-10s-ish to Bradley fighting vehicles lol

It's always the same tired arguments. "New thing bad because it's expensive, go back to cheap old thing."

People opposed the F-15 when it first came out for the same reasons, people opposed the bradley for stupid reasons, and people like to think they dunked on the F-35 because it's expensive without understanding why.

A handful of countries in the entire world can actually make modern combat aircraft, and to answer this thread's title: they made a plane that is more advanced and more capable than it's felonious competition, because if they make something that's cheap it's going to end up scattered across the countryside.

The real issue is not that the F-35 is bad, because it isn't really, or that it's expensive, because a lot of what the US armed forces use is expensive, it's that it's really expensive despite being conceived as being a plane the armed forces would buy in the thousands. That's why the air force now wants something different; they don't want more F-16s, because those are old planes, but if there's no way it'll be economical to replace them all with F-35s.