A Guide to an Air Force: F-Series Version

[The Predator Federation]

I say give the B-52s to the Isrealis

[Pimps Inc]

I'll have the dos equis Guy explain.

Though this used to be true....according to google.....

[Transnapastain]

I'll have the dos equis Guy explain.

(Image)

Though this used to be true....according to google.....

If all your going to do is post nonsense, don't post at all.

Edit: Next time its a warning for spamming.

[Pimps Inc]

I'll have the dos equis Guy explain.

(Image)

Though this used to be true....according to google.....

If all your going to do is post nonsense, don't post at all.

Edit: Next time its a warning for spamming.

Understood.

[Roski]

The A10 is 11.8 MILLION DOLLARS! THAT IS DAMN CHEAP! COMPARE TO THE F-35 WHICH IS 130 MILLION DOLLARS THE A-10 IS NOT EXPENSIVE

Because it has almost no use...

A-10 Kicks ass and Takes names. Its the leading CAS fighter.

[Padnak]

CAS in the sense of ground attack aircraft like the A-10 is dead outside of Iraqi-army removal. Most modern tanks can shrug off 30mm DU rounds like they're nothing

[Roski]

CAS in the sense of ground attack aircraft like the A-10 is dead outside of Iraqi-army removal. Most modern tanks can shrug off 30mm DU rounds like they're nothing

I don't use it typically on Armour.

Its good on trenches and airfields.

[Padnak]

air fields are generally protected by SAMs and hostile aircraft, two things that absolutely destroy ground attack aircraft

[Roski]

air fields are generally protected by SAMs and hostile aircraft, two things that absolutely destroy ground attack aircraft

The Hostile aircraft are targets.
Besides, I use A-10 Drones (not in my MT military), so it doesn't matter much.

SAMs can be dealt with by Tank fire, the point of a Ground Attack Craft would be preemptive, to destroy the airfield and all the planes on it (Tora, Tora, TORA), so that my air force can have complete dominance of the sky for a couple hours.

[Inyourfaceistan]

CAS in the sense of ground attack aircraft like the A-10 is dead outside of Iraqi-army removal. Most modern tanks can shrug off 30mm DU rounds like they're nothing

But can they shrug off a Maverick missile?
Now look at all the IFV's, APC's, and other armored vehicles. Can they shrug off 30mm DU that can tear through a T-72?

Also, even against something like an Abrams or a Leo-2, the cannon rounds could still mess with external optics and other non-protected equipment vunerable from the top.

air fields are generally protected by SAMs and hostile aircraft, two things that absolutely destroy ground attack aircraft

I see your point about airfields, but generally the hostile aircraft would be dealt with by air supperiority fighters and most of the SAM's destroyed in SEAD missions by strike fighters or multirole.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

CAS in the sense of ground attack aircraft like the A-10 is dead outside of Iraqi-army removal. Most modern tanks can shrug off 30mm DU rounds like they're nothing

But can they shrug off a Maverick missile?
Now look at all the IFV's, APC's, and other armored vehicles. Can they shrug off 30mm DU that can tear through a T-72?

Also, even against something like an Abrams or a Leo-2, the cannon rounds could still mess with external optics and other non-protected equipment vunerable from the top.

Until those two SA-18 gunners desanting from a BTR-80 in cover shoves two missiles in both your engines.
Face it, without proper fighter cover A-10's would be sitting ducks to enemy fighters, and if you had fighter cover with them, why not skip the middle man with no thrust-to-weight and mount a rocket pod on an F-16 or AV-8B?

[Padnak]

Ground attack aircraft are inferior to attack helicopters and multiroles/friendly ground forces when it comes to destroying hostile armor.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

CAS in the sense of ground attack aircraft like the A-10 is dead outside of Iraqi-army removal. Most modern tanks can shrug off 30mm DU rounds like they're nothing

But can they shrug off a Maverick missile?
Now look at all the IFV's, APC's, and other armored vehicles. Can they shrug off 30mm DU that can tear through a T-72?

Also, even against something like an Abrams or a Leo-2, the cannon rounds could still mess with external optics and other non-protected equipment vunerable from the top.

air fields are generally protected by SAMs and hostile aircraft, two things that absolutely destroy ground attack aircraft

I see your point about airfields, but generally the hostile aircraft would be dealt with by air supperiority fighters and most of the SAM's destroyed in SEAD missions by strike fighters or multirole.

Except that, in the case of the Leo-2, the APS could just shoot the rounds out of the sky before impact, which means it doesn't really matter anyway.

And why would you send an A-10 to destroy a hard target with defenses like that? Why not bomb it from the air? Why not use cruise missiles? IF you want to take out an enemy soft target, why spend the money on the A-10 when you could use just as effective helicopters, with even more accuracy?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

But can they shrug off a Maverick missile?
Now look at all the IFV's, APC's, and other armored vehicles. Can they shrug off 30mm DU that can tear through a T-72?

Also, even against something like an Abrams or a Leo-2, the cannon rounds could still mess with external optics and other non-protected equipment vunerable from the top.



I see your point about airfields, but generally the hostile aircraft would be dealt with by air supperiority fighters and most of the SAM's destroyed in SEAD missions by strike fighters or multirole.

Except that, in the case of the Leo-2, the APS could just shoot the rounds out of the sky before impact, which means it doesn't really matter anyway.

And why would you send an A-10 to destroy a hard target with defenses like that? Why not bomb it from the air? Why not use cruise missiles? IF you want to take out an enemy soft target, why spend the money on the A-10 when you could use just as effective helicopters, with even more accuracy?

No it couldn't. The AMAP-ADS you've been trying to mount on planes as well is nothing more than a sensor-triggered multiuse ERA (yes the directed-energy part is there because it sounds fancier than plain explosives). It would disrupt maybe five rounds and then hopelessly watch as the remaining 40-50 of the burst hit home.
Foot note: Trying to mount AMAP-ADS on a B-2 would result in the ADS blowing the B-2's wings off.

[Padnak]

Against the amount of 30mm projectiles that would be flying at a tank during an A-10 gunrun, your APS wouldn't be able to do anything mate

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Except that, in the case of the Leo-2, the APS could just shoot the rounds out of the sky before impact, which means it doesn't really matter anyway.

And why would you send an A-10 to destroy a hard target with defenses like that? Why not bomb it from the air? Why not use cruise missiles? IF you want to take out an enemy soft target, why spend the money on the A-10 when you could use just as effective helicopters, with even more accuracy?

No it couldn't. The AMAP-ADS you've been trying to mount on planes as well is nothing more than a sensor-triggered multiuse ERA (yes the directed-energy part is there because it sounds fancier than plain explosives). It would disrupt maybe five rounds and then hopelessly watch as the remaining 40-50 of the burst hit home.
Foot note: Trying to mount AMAP-ADS on a B-2 would result in the ADS blowing the B-2's wings off.

You obviously don't know a single thing about it, do you? Because it's not explosive. It's got no moving parts. It wouldn't even have recoil, and it's the fastest response time of all APS. It would literally take all the bullets, and while you thought it hit it, it would laugh in your face.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

No it couldn't. The AMAP-ADS you've been trying to mount on planes as well is nothing more than a sensor-triggered multiuse ERA (yes the directed-energy part is there because it sounds fancier than plain explosives). It would disrupt maybe five rounds and then hopelessly watch as the remaining 40-50 of the burst hit home.
Foot note: Trying to mount AMAP-ADS on a B-2 would result in the ADS blowing the B-2's wings off.

You obviously don't know a single thing about it, do you? Because it's not explosive. It's got no moving parts. It wouldn't even have recoil, and it's the fastest response time of all APS. It would literally take all the bullets, and while you thought it hit it, it would laugh in your face.

This looks pretty explosive'y and ERA'y to me. But what the heck do I know?

[San-Silvacian]

Then the R-77 from my Su-35s blow it up.

And your B2 goes plowing into the ground.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Check out the reaction time. The overlapping systems would be able to cope with something that fires that many.

BTW, you realize that if you destroy an explosive item like that, it explodes right?

Oh, jet engines bleed. How do I know that? A puppy flew in the front and came out the end, causing the engine to shoot blood out of it's back.

[Inyourfaceistan]

But can they shrug off a Maverick missile?
Now look at all the IFV's, APC's, and other armored vehicles. Can they shrug off 30mm DU that can tear through a T-72?

Also, even against something like an Abrams or a Leo-2, the cannon rounds could still mess with external optics and other non-protected equipment vunerable from the top.



I see your point about airfields, but generally the hostile aircraft would be dealt with by air supperiority fighters and most of the SAM's destroyed in SEAD missions by strike fighters or multirole.

Except that, in the case of the Leo-2, the APS could just shoot the rounds out of the sky before impact, which means it doesn't really matter anyway.

Actually no. If the A-10 were shooting it's cannon at the Leo-2 (not advisable but better than letting it flank your troops) then the sheer volume of cannon fire would overwhelm AMAP-ADS. If the A-10 just fired a Maverick then it doesn't matter because AMAP-ADS isn't going to stop a Maverick.

And why would you send an A-10 to destroy a hard target with defenses like that? Why not bomb it from the air? Why not use cruise missiles? IF you want to take out an enemy soft target, why spend the money on the A-10 when you could use just as effective helicopters, with even more accuracy?

Why send tanks to attack enemy tanks when you can just shoot cruise missiles, or have artillery and ATGM crews do it?
Why have SAM's defend your base when your fighters should take out enemy aircraft and have MANPADS crews finish of what gets through?
Why bother with APS when you can just save the money to buy more tanks and accomplish the same mission?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Check out the reaction time. The overlapping systems would be able to cope with something that fires that many.

BTW, you realize that if you destroy an explosive item like that, it explodes right?

Oh, jet engines bleed. How do I know that? A puppy flew in the front and came out the end, causing the engine to shoot blood out of it's back.

What are you rambling on about Sire?
It's got the reaction time because it doesn't have to launch a missile. All it has to do is to detonate the nearest plate and shape charge the fucker intruding.

[South Pacific Republic]

You guys know the reason the US still has the B52 right?

It's so darn cheap to operate and is receptive to upgrades

[Layarteb]

There is no scenario whatsoever where having an AMAP-ADS on a B-2 Spirit STEALTH bomber will be good. For starters, if you're B-2 Spirit has been tracked by an engagement radar long enough for a surface-to-air site to plot a firing solution OR if it has become engaged by fighters you have utterly failed in your mission. B-2 bombers are escorted by entire packages of fighters for combat air support, electronic warfare, SEAD, and close air support. A path is literally blown through the universe just so they can fly to their targets. Over Kosovo each B-2 was escorted by no less than two EA-6B Prowlers for the EW component, just to give you an idea of what lengths the USAF went to in order to protect their bombers.

• Now in the unlikely - and fail - event that your B-2 becomes engaged by anti-aircraft fire of a projectile nature - WHY ARE YOU FLYING SO LOW.
• Now in the unlikely - and less fail - event that your B-2 becomes engaged by a surface-to-air missile - the B-2 has an ECM system capable of cooking human beings (yes it's that powerful) like the EA-6 and like the B-1. Use it. There are also chaff and flares. If it's an EO-guided SAM prepare to be F-117 Serbia take 2.
• Now in the unlikely - and still somewhat fail - event that your B-2 becomes engaged by aircraft - WHERE THE HELL IS YOUR FIGHTER COVER. YOUR PLANE IS BEING SHOT DOWN.

Also I will just leave out the obvious that this system on the wings of an aircraft will utterly compromise its stealth. Good job getting yourself shot down in a $1.6 billion B-2 bomber.

[San-Silvacian]

Check out the reaction time. The overlapping systems would be able to cope with something that fires that many.

BTW, you realize that if you destroy an explosive item like that, it explodes right?

Oh, jet engines bleed. How do I know that? A puppy flew in the front and came out the end, causing the engine to shoot blood out of it's back.

Then my R-77 blows it up.

[Nemo Association]

A-10 is not for air to air combat. It designed for only one use, get low to ground flying low speed and use it deadly Gatling cannon to support ground units right under it belly. It designed to withstand heavy damage from enemy ground units. F-16 and the Harriers are what my engineer team call "half-and-half". F-16 is a good fighter that could hold its own in an air-to-air fight but the pilot need to know what he is doing. Put the a good pilot in the Falcon and an other same skill pilot into other comparable fighter like the Mirage 2000, then the fight is 50-50 for the F-16. F-16 top speed is not faster than any other competitors, its payload is about the same, only electronic is better when compare to Russian shtty electronic. The Harriers is a light infantry support, meaning it can not go super-sonic, light pay-load, only advantage is it can hover for take off and landing. The Harrier designed for end of the world war, where traditional runway, and airport is not available, it designed to hide and take off vertically from a forest, jungles or concealed locations. The Harrier will go down if a few 50 cal bullets hit it. I don't know how old is Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, but he is quite an amateur base on his shocking lack of basic knowledge in regard of military aircraft and logic.

There are 3 basic roles when design a military fixed-wing aircraft: Fighter, Attacker and Bomber. When try to mixed any of them together you have a multi-role which can do many thing but not the best at those thing. Example: F/A-18E Super Hornet is for sure a great aircraft but it can not win a fight against dedicated fighters like F-15, Su-27 or Euro-fighter given its competitor commanded by same skill pilot; it also can not get as low to the ground and take that kind of punishment as the A-10 or Su-25 in a ground attack run. When a line of infantry being charged by the enemy with overwhelming force number, it's the job for an attacker like A-10 to hold the line with the infantry. Sure other fighter liek F-16 can strap rocket pods and smart bombs to help out but the accuracy and effect is no where near the A-10. This kind of talk is like trying to make some one understand why we need Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) to fight in cities and not Tank, or why an IFV platoon is a "dead man walking" in a fight with a tank platoon on an open ground.