A Guide to an Air Force: F-Series Version

[San-Silvacian]

The GAU-8 on the A-10 is useless against most MBTs made from 1965 onward.

T-62 was, from most angles, immune to 30mm ammo.

[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.

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?

Eh, Its not gonna destroy a Maverick, but it'll stop most of the cannons with the overlapping systems. That or the spall lining would just stop the bullets. Either way, the Leo-2 would survive the bullets. Probably not a Maverick, but if you're firing a Maverick at one tank... you have no life. Or you're just bored.

Well, yeah. Why bother with the tanks against tanks? That's a good question. Your other questions are actually stupid, though...

Why bother with APS? Maybe because unlike you, some people like to live. Some people actually WANT to save both money and the crews lives, unlike you, who just thinks that money and people grow on trees, and they come out instantly trained to use a tank.

And what the fuck are the rest of you guys even talking about?

[Layarteb]

Oddly enough, while not designed for air combat, the A-10 makes a pretty good fighter. They can fly very slow - thus forcing jets to slow down to their lower corner speeds - not good for fast jets. They can also carry AIM-9s on all of their wing pylons and that actually gives them a formidable close-in loadout considering that IR-guided missiles (without MWS) don't announce their presence. They cannot carry the IIR AIM-9X but they can carry any other manner of AIM-9. Fun fact, during the initial stages of OEF, A-10s were actually flying CAP as their need for a gun/tank-killer platform of doom wasn't needed as badly.

[Inyourfaceistan]

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 got 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 attack 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.

I never said A-10's are capable of anti-air.
All I said was they are a CAS/Ground Attack aircraft, and they do that job efficiently.

[Roski]

Oddly enough, while not designed for air combat, the A-10 makes a pretty good fighter. They can fly very slow - thus forcing jets to slow down to their lower corner speeds - not good for fast jets. They can also carry AIM-9s on all of their wing pylons and that actually gives them a formidable close-in loadout considering that IR-guided missiles (without MWS) don't announce their presence. They cannot carry the IIR AIM-9X but they can carry any other manner of AIM-9. Fun fact, during the initial stages of OEF, A-10s were actually flying CAP as their need for a gun/tank-killer platform of doom wasn't needed as badly.

But the turn radius is absolutely shit, it could be out-turned quite easily in a dogfight.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Oddly enough, while not designed for air combat, the A-10 makes a pretty good fighter. They can fly very slow - thus forcing jets to slow down to their lower corner speeds - not good for fast jets. They can also carry AIM-9s on all of their wing pylons and that actually gives them a formidable close-in loadout considering that IR-guided missiles (without MWS) don't announce their presence. They cannot carry the IIR AIM-9X but they can carry any other manner of AIM-9. Fun fact, during the initial stages of OEF, A-10s were actually flying CAP as their need for a gun/tank-killer platform of doom wasn't needed as badly.

But the turn radius is absolutely shit, it could be out-turned quite easily in a dogfight.

The A-10 makes a horrible air to air fighter. Completely horrible.

It goes slow. So what? That's nobody's advantage except for the ASFs. They don't have to slow down. They've already got it on radar, and already locked on. So what if they have that many missiles? It's useless if it's already shot down. So what about the maneuverability? What's this, WW2? We don't shoot planes down with bullets anymore.

[San-Silvacian]

But the turn radius is absolutely shit, it could be out-turned quite easily in a dogfight.

The A-10 makes a horrible air to air fighter. Completely horrible.

It goes slow. So what? That's nobody's advantage except for the ASFs. They don't have to slow down. They've already got it on radar, and already locked on. So what if they have that many missiles? It's useless if it's already shot down. So what about the maneuverability? What's this, WW2? We don't shoot planes down with bullets anymore.

Thats what they said when the F-4 was made.

[Nemo Association]

My last post was for the comment of Austria-Bohemia-Hungary about replace the A-10 with sticking rocket pods to F-16 and Harrier.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

The A-10 makes a horrible air to air fighter. Completely horrible.

It goes slow. So what? That's nobody's advantage except for the ASFs. They don't have to slow down. They've already got it on radar, and already locked on. So what if they have that many missiles? It's useless if it's already shot down. So what about the maneuverability? What's this, WW2? We don't shoot planes down with bullets anymore.

Thats what they said when the F-4 was made.

The F-4 was an interceptor, and it could go pretty fast.

I was respond to the comment of Austria-Bohemia-Hungary about replace the A-10 with sticking rocket pods to F-16 and Harrier.

A Harrier Ground Attack version would actually be very effective, considering it's a VTOL aircraft that could be launched from an Assault Carrier's deck close to the shore.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Eh, Its not gonna destroy a Maverick, but it'll stop most of the cannons with the overlapping systems. That or the spall lining would just stop the bullets. Either way, the Leo-2 would survive the bullets. Probably not a Maverick, but if you're firing a Maverick at one tank... you have no life. Or you're just bored.

Wrong. A-10 is a gatling gun that fires over 2,000 rounds a minute. That is way more bullets than your panels can stop.
Granted, not that the 30mm will do much to a Leo-2 other than take away your APS-ERA hybrid; but the bullets will without a doubt overrun the AMAP-ADS. This is not Battlefield 4.

Well, yeah. Why bother with the tanks against tanks? That's a good question. Your other questions are actually stupid, though...

That is not a good question.
Replacing ground attack aircraft with multirole fighters is like replacing APC's with IFV's. Hell, while you are at it why don't you replace your air supperiority fighters with multirole while youre at it?

Why bother with APS? Maybe because unlike you, some people like to live. Some people actually WANT to save both money and the crews lives, unlike you, who just thinks that money and people grow on trees, and they come out instantly trained to use a tank.

What?
This makes no sense in response to what I said, and is pretty much ad-hominem/strawman/wannabe mind-reading BS...

[Layarteb]

Oddly enough, while not designed for air combat, the A-10 makes a pretty good fighter. They can fly very slow - thus forcing jets to slow down to their lower corner speeds - not good for fast jets. They can also carry AIM-9s on all of their wing pylons and that actually gives them a formidable close-in loadout considering that IR-guided missiles (without MWS) don't announce their presence. They cannot carry the IIR AIM-9X but they can carry any other manner of AIM-9. Fun fact, during the initial stages of OEF, A-10s were actually flying CAP as their need for a gun/tank-killer platform of doom wasn't needed as badly.

But the turn radius is absolutely shit, it could be out-turned quite easily in a dogfight.

Actually quite the contrary, the A-10 has an excellent turn radius, especially at low speed. It can turn inside of any fast mover save for perhaps the F-22 and other TV-equipped aircraft.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS

AMAP ADS. Non explosive. Directed energy. There's something similar to it already being developed.

And yes, Layarteb, you are correct. However, it only has the turn radius at LOW speed, because of it's large wings.

[Erusuia]

Ground attack aircraft are only really useful in COIN and that sort of thing now days, or at least that's my understanding

[Inyourfaceistan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS

AMAP ADS. Non explosive. Directed energy. There's something similar to it already being developed.

Also, I am in no way supporting the concept that A-10 should be used any air target other than maybe an unescorted transport helicopter out of sheer luck and opportunity...

[Layarteb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS

AMAP ADS. Non explosive. Directed energy. There's something similar to it already being developed.

And yes, Layarteb, you are correct. However, it only has the turn radius at LOW speed, because of it's large wings.

Perhaps you missed when I said: They can fly very slow - thus forcing jets to slow down to their lower corner speeds - not good for fast jets.

[Britanno]

Brilliant guide for RPers who know nothing about the military such as myself, very helpful. Thanks a lot.

[Erusuia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS

AMAP ADS. Non explosive. Directed energy. There's something similar to it already being developed.

And yes, Layarteb, you are correct. However, it only has the turn radius at LOW speed, because of it's large wings.

Regardless of how much APS and that sort of thing a tank has, an ATGM like the AGM-65 Maverick is going to mission kill it. Trying to argue that the A-10 is still an effective tank hunter is sort of rendered moot by the simple fact that something as basic as a ZU-23-2 can bring it down

[Inyourfaceistan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS

AMAP ADS. Non explosive. Directed energy. There's something similar to it already being developed.

And yes, Layarteb, you are correct. However, it only has the turn radius at LOW speed, because of it's large wings.

Regardless of how much APS and that sort of thing a tank has, an ATGM like the AGM-65 Maverick is going to mission kill it. Trying to argue that the A-10 is still an effective tank hunter is sort of rendered moot by the simple fact that something as basic as a ZU-23-2 can bring it down

Something as basic as a ZSU-23 can also bring down an AH-64 Apache. Clearly, the AH-64 is an ineffective airframe.

[San-Silvacian]

Thats what they said when the F-4 was made.

The F-4 was an interceptor, and it could go pretty fast.

What does that have to do with anything?

F-15Cs go faster than the F-4.

F-14s go faster.

MiG-31 goes faster.

Su-35 goes faster.

Guess what they all have.

Also lal & A-10 being brought down by puny ZSU-23s.

[Padnak]

Can we all agree that the A-10 fills a role that is no longer required and that there are a number of aircraft that do what it does in addition to a whole lot more and have rendered it obsolete as a result...

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Ground attack aircraft are only really useful in COIN and that sort of thing now days, or at least that's my understanding

Uhm... no, actually. They're VERY useful with that, as terrorists generally aren't well equipped, but lets say you have a tank column, with soldiers nearby. You send a few ground attack aircraft to intercept. Those ground attack aircraft could pummel them to the ground, destroying some if not most of the tanks and killing many soldiers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS

AMAP ADS. Non explosive. Directed energy. There's something similar to it already being developed.

Also, I am in no way supporting the concept that A-10 should be used any air target other than maybe an unescorted transport helicopter out of sheer luck and opportunity...

To be fair, you actually have no more information than I do on the subject, and you just assume by seeing an explosion in a picture that could've been a tank round exploding midair, but what do I know about your intelligence and your observations which include making fun of people who make a damn good point against you. I've brought up my evidence. You've responded with a spammy meme that does nothing to help you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS

AMAP ADS. Non explosive. Directed energy. There's something similar to it already being developed.

And yes, Layarteb, you are correct. However, it only has the turn radius at LOW speed, because of it's large wings.

Perhaps you missed when I said: They can fly very slow - thus forcing jets to slow down to their lower corner speeds - not good for fast jets.

Perhaps you missed 5th and 4th Generatoin warfare. I said: It doesn't matter. They don't need to slow down to shoot the plane out of the skies with their missiles. They can go as fast as they damn want. Like I said, it isn't WW2 where you have to be on the tail of someone firing bullets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMAP-ADS

AMAP ADS. Non explosive. Directed energy. There's something similar to it already being developed.

And yes, Layarteb, you are correct. However, it only has the turn radius at LOW speed, because of it's large wings.

Regardless of how much APS and that sort of thing a tank has, an ATGM like the AGM-65 Maverick is going to mission kill it. Trying to argue that the A-10 is still an effective tank hunter is sort of rendered moot by the simple fact that something as basic as a ZU-23-2 can bring it down

I never said the Maverick wouldn't kill it... I merely said that the APS would be able to stop bullets...

Regardless of how much APS and that sort of thing a tank has, an ATGM like the AGM-65 Maverick is going to mission kill it. Trying to argue that the A-10 is still an effective tank hunter is sort of rendered moot by the simple fact that something as basic as a ZU-23-2 can bring it down

Something as basic as a ZSU-23 can also bring down an AH-64 Apache. Clearly, the AH-64 is an ineffective airframe.

You have a good point there IYF... but I'm merely saying that the A-10 should be replaced by MRFs or a modified MRF.

The F-4 was an interceptor, and it could go pretty fast.

What does that have to do with anything?

F-15Cs go faster than the F-4.

F-14s go faster.

MiG-31 goes faster.

Su-35 goes faster.

Guess what they all have.

Also lal & A-10 being brought down by puny ZSU-23s.

And what does the F-4 have to do with anything that's being discussed here?

Can we all agree that the A-10 fills a role that is no longer required and that there are a number of aircraft that do what it does in addition to a whole lot more and have rendered it obsolete as a result...

Please?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The GAU-8 on the A-10 is useless against most MBTs made from 1965 onward.

T-62 was, from most angles, immune to 30mm ammo.

Meanwhile CRV7 practice rounds were penning T-72's.

[Transnapastain]

Can we all agree that the A-10 fills a role that is no longer required and that there are a number of aircraft that do what it does in addition to a whole lot more and have rendered it obsolete as a result...

Nope, welcome to the realm of "age old arguments that are dick useless but get perpetuated anyways because :fan boys:"

Also known as every NS Milism thread ever.

[Padnak]

Also lal & A-10 being brought down by puny ZSU-23s.

don't got time to bleed

[Nemo Association]

My engineer team always joke with the air-force pilots that if some how an attacker aircraft like the A-10 got on their 6, they better pull that eject lever. Why? No aircraft could out fly an A-10 at low speed and its bullet. Also, in a regular basic the fighter pilot tell us how pissed off they are when they completed their simulation or co-op combat training against the A-10. Why? once the A-10 hit the deck it always almost game over for them, their fighter just can not fly that low and that slow, especially in the canyon once they over shoot the attacker they have to rocket the heck out of there, else the attacker gun will hand their ass to them.

Also that A-10 in the picture did not get totaled.