A Guide to an Air Force: F-Series Version

[South Pacific Republic]

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

don't got time to bleed

I feel just fine, doc. There's nothing wrong with me

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

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 their else the attacker gun will hand their ass to them.

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

They don't need to fly slow or low... That's the point. You guys don't seem to understand that the average fighter jet would never be in the situation where an A-10 would be chasing it, as the plane would just be able to go supersonic.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

don't got time to bleed

I feel just fine, doc. There's nothing wrong with me

Enough with the spam threadjack.

And no, that A-10 was fine. Only one engine was destroyed.. probably from malfunction or heat seeking missiles. Most likely heat seeking.

[San-Silvacian]

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

You brought it up with saying that guns are useless in air to air engagements.

I feel just fine, doc. There's nothing wrong with me

Enough with the spam threadjack.

That was a Sterla.
And no, that A-10 was fine. Only one engine was destroyed.. probably from malfunction or heat seeking missiles. Most likely heat seeking.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

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

You brought it up with saying that guns are useless in air to air engagements.

Enough with the spam threadjack.

That was a Sterla.
And no, that A-10 was fine. Only one engine was destroyed.. probably from malfunction or heat seeking missiles. Most likely heat seeking.

Could you not edit my quotes? Thanks.

And yeah... guns are... when will you get into that kind of engagement? The F-4 didn't actually have guns until later, and it almost never used them. Like I said: This isn't WW2 or early post ww2... we don't swarm around shooting bullets into planes at supersonic speeds.

[Inyourfaceistan]

(Image)

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.

Wrong. Your own evidence proves my point. Did you even see the YouTube video by Rhimmethal that the Wikipedia article cited? It's clearly ERA. This also helps explain the complete lack of fragmentation.
Further, I'm not an expert. I'm a freaking Biology student for crying out loud. I let the people who clearly know more than me change my opinion on matters. You have already been told multiple times by some of the knowledgable people on the NS mil-realism thread that it is just essentially active ERA; yet you continue to say 'directed energy' like you know what it means and as if 'directed energy' means it cant be ERA, despite the fact your own source cites an official video which demonstrates the opposite.

So yes, my meme is relevant and it does explain the situation until you can tell me what directed energy means and how that somehow means its not inherently ERA.

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...

No. Saying that is like saying IFV's render APC's obsolete. Just because an IFV can sort of do an APC's job doesn't make the APC obsolete.
If multirole fighters are clearly the answer because ground attack can't fight air targets and multirole can attack ground targets, then why don't we replace air supperiority fighters with them as well, because air supperiority fighters can't attack ground targets but multirole can fight air targets?

[Glorious ReBublic of Alevstan]

PTW

[Nemo Association]

Sorry but I have to let you know some thing. Back in the days of Cold War, there were scenario that A-10 pilot trained to counter Soviet fighter like Mig or Sukhoi because for sure those baster will take cheap shoot at our attackers if they have the chance. And chance are our dedicated fighters would not able to 100% contain all the Soviet fighters just due to their massive number. Put yourself into a responsible general or commander and knowing for sure your attacker will get into fight with enemy dedicated fighters, would you at least prepared and train our attacker's pilots?

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

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.

Wrong. Your own evidence proves my point. Did you even see the YouTube video by Rhimmethal that the Wikipedia article cited? It's clearly ERA. This also helps explain the complete lack of fragmentation.
Further, I'm not an expert. I'm a freaking Biology student for crying out loud. I let the people who clearly know more than me change my opinion on matters. You have already been told multiple times by some of the knowledgable people on the NS mil-realism thread that it is just essentially active ERA; yet you continue to say 'directed energy' like you know what it means and as if 'directed energy' means it cant be ERA, despite the fact your own source cites an official video which demonstrates the opposite.

So yes, my meme is relevant and it does explain the situation until you can tell me what directed energy means and how that somehow means its not inherently ERA.

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...

No. Saying that is like saying IFV's render APC's obsolete. Just because an IFV can sort of do an APC's job doesn't make the APC obsolete.
If multirole fighters are clearly the answer because ground attack can't fight air targets and multirole can attack ground targets, then why don't we replace air supperiority fighters with them as well, because air supperiority fighters can't attack ground targets but multirole can fight air targets?

Well... We sorta are... Except that there is always a need for specialized items in every situation, so undoubtedly we'll keep that up.

And I don't know what Directed energy is. You don't know what it is either. So you can't make assumptions based off of, well, nothing. I did watch the video. And I saw what happened. I also saw that no charges were launched and that there was still the same shape of the APS.

Nemo... every pilot is trained to counter fighters.

[Layarteb]

They don't need to fly slow or low... That's the point. You guys don't seem to understand that the average fighter jet would never be in the situation where an A-10 would be chasing it, as the plane would just be able to go supersonic.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding for air combat and the use of fighters today - not in reference to this comment - but to the general comments you've made on this thread.

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...

So long as close air support is needed, the A-10 is needed. In Vietnam, they retired the slow-moving but amazingly capable A-1 Skyraiders - citing many of the same reasons they cite on the A-10 - to let A-7s and F-4s fly CAS. A-1s had a long loiter time over the target and they could easily escort helicopters. A-7s and F-4s had zip for loiter time and they had to fly in circles and tank multiple times to escort helicopters. It wasn't ideal.

Replacing the A-10 with an F-16 or F-15E is the precise SAME mistake.

[Nemo Association]

Nemo... every pilot is trained to counter fighters.

Exactly and every pilot is trained to attack anything, high and fast flying targets, slow and low flying targets, hovering targets, and grounds targets. And in a real war with an enemy like ... let's say Soviet/Russia or China, all kind of scenario will happen so that's why NATO pilots are being trained very very hard given the tension of the real world today.

I swear I hate the auto-complete feature of my tablet.

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

Nemo... every pilot is trained to counter fighters.

Exactly and every pilot is trained to attack anything, high and fast flying targets, slow and low flying targets, hovering targets, and grounds targets. And in a real war with an enemy like ... let's say Soviet/Russia or China, all kind of scenario will happen so that's why NATO pilots are being trained very very hard given the tension of to real world today.

So what's your point, if I may ask?

[Nemo Association]

My point is that Austria-Bohemia-Hungary was very wrong to think and say A-10 and its kind (su-25) could be replace simply by sticking a few rocket-pods on F-16. That was the thing that drove me nutz as an engineer, that kinda push my "button" too far lol.

[Inyourfaceistan]

And I don't know what Directed energy is. You don't know what it is either. So you can't make assumptions based off of, well, nothing. I did watch the video. And I saw what happened. I also saw that no charges were launched and that there was still the same shape of the APS.

Nemo... every pilot is trained to counter fighters.

I'm not the one making assumptions based off nothing. I'm the one making an assumption based off of the video by Rhimmethal used as a source, and by the fact people who know more than me have said it is just active ERA.

You are the one making an assumption based on a word you admit to not knowing what it means going against logic, reason and the assement of people who know more than you, most likely just so you can haz iWin armor on your tanks for II...

[Die Erworbenen Namen]

My point is that Austria-Bohemia-Hungary was very wrong to think and say A-10 and its kind (su-25, alpha...) could be replace simply by sticking a few rocket-pods on F-16. That was the thing that drove me nutz as an engineer, that kinda push my "button" too far lol.

I'd rather use a gunship or a helicopter, but that's just me.

And I don't know what Directed energy is. You don't know what it is either. So you can't make assumptions based off of, well, nothing. I did watch the video. And I saw what happened. I also saw that no charges were launched and that there was still the same shape of the APS.

Nemo... every pilot is trained to counter fighters.

I'm not the one making assumptions based off nothing. I'm the one making an assumption based off of the video by Rhimmethal used as a source, and by the fact people who know more than me have said it is just active ERA.

You are the one making an assessment of a word you admit to not knowing what it means going against logic, reason and the assement of people who know more than you, most likely just so you can haz iWin armor on your tanks for II...

And I'm making assumptions based upon what I've read and seen, putting two and two together.

In case you don't know, I don't have invincible things. My armor has weak points. I'm not stupid.

[The Predator Federation]

Ah, no legacy fighters are the toughest and most rugged
an F-16 lost an engine and landed safely
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILxzJAcq1Mc
An F-15 lost a wing and landed safely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Negev ... _collision

[Black Hand]

Is there a articular reason why the GAU-8 couldn't be mounted to a transport aircraft a La AC-130
also why does it seem like the USAAF is the only air force that seems to have developed loitering gunships. And does anyone have any ideas/ recommendations for a Gunship based off an aircraft comparable to a C-17. I'm considering a gunslinger like launch tube for AGM's A 25-30mm rotary cannon and a 105mm or 120mm cannon (not howitizer) with a hydropneumatic recoil system

also @detractors of the A-10 and how "useless" it is in anything other than COIN look at Gulf 91' over 900 confirmed tank kills plus 1,200 artillery pieces. with only four field losses and three aircraft deemed "totaled", I'm not saying that The Iraqi army wan't completely outmatched, but even then that kill ratio is obscene and some of the equipment was comparable to what the Soviet B units would have had.

[San-Silvacian]

Is there a articular reason why the GAU-8 couldn't be mounted to a transport aircraft a La AC-130
also why does it seem like the USAAF is the only air force that seems to have developed loitering gunships. And does anyone have any ideas/ recommendations for a Gunship based off an aircraft comparable to a C-17. I'm considering a gunslinger like launch tube for AGM's A 25-30mm rotary cannon and a 105mm or 120mm cannon (not howitizer) with a hydropneumatic recoil system

also @detractors of the A-10 and how "useless" it is in anything other than COIN look at Gulf 91' over 900 confirmed tank kills plus 1,200 artillery pieces. with only four field losses and three aircraft deemed "totaled", I'm not saying that The Iraqi army wan't completely outmatched, but even then that kill ratio is obscene and some of the equipment was comparable to what the Soviet B units would have had.

Those numbers are actually being debated.

Some Iraqi units reported single digit tank loses to aircraft strikes, however they reported being made combat ineffective by later artillery strikes, then follow up strikes by armored/mechanized formations.

And no, much of what the Iraqis had was 'decent' however much of their early warning was taken out very early on, so their air defenses were unable to respond accordingly in most cases.

Their air force, being so tied to their army, was unable to respond properly as well, plus with the lack of early warning facilities, were unable to respond because of a lack of information.

[Black Hand]

Is there a articular reason why the GAU-8 couldn't be mounted to a transport aircraft a La AC-130
also why does it seem like the USAAF is the only air force that seems to have developed loitering gunships. And does anyone have any ideas/ recommendations for a Gunship based off an aircraft comparable to a C-17. I'm considering a gunslinger like launch tube for AGM's A 25-30mm rotary cannon and a 105mm or 120mm cannon (not howitizer) with a hydropneumatic recoil system

also @detractors of the A-10 and how "useless" it is in anything other than COIN look at Gulf 91' over 900 confirmed tank kills plus 1,200 artillery pieces. with only four field losses and three aircraft deemed "totaled", I'm not saying that The Iraqi army wan't completely outmatched, but even then that kill ratio is obscene and some of the equipment was comparable to what the Soviet B units would have had.

Those numbers are actually being debated.

Some Iraqi units reported single digit tank loses to aircraft strikes, however they reported being made combat ineffective by later artillery strikes, then follow up strikes by armored/mechanized formations.

And no, much of what the Iraqis had was 'decent' however much of their early warning was taken out very early on, so their air defenses were unable to respond accordingly in most cases.

Their air force, being so tied to their army, was unable to respond properly as well, plus with the lack of early warning facilities, were unable to respond because of a lack of information.

I can see that being possible even if the numbers were a quarter of what was reported it would still be quite decent.

the Iraqi air force was highly ineffective throughout the conflict. they were outmatched.

F-117 anyone know what actually happened to it? I never heard or saw anything on it after 01 with the bombings of Baghdad

[San-Silvacian]

Those numbers are actually being debated.

Some Iraqi units reported single digit tank loses to aircraft strikes, however they reported being made combat ineffective by later artillery strikes, then follow up strikes by armored/mechanized formations.

And no, much of what the Iraqis had was 'decent' however much of their early warning was taken out very early on, so their air defenses were unable to respond accordingly in most cases.

Their air force, being so tied to their army, was unable to respond properly as well, plus with the lack of early warning facilities, were unable to respond because of a lack of information.

I can see that being possible even if the numbers were a quarter of what was reported it would still be quite decent.

the Iraqi air force was highly ineffective throughout the conflict. they were outmatched.

F-117 anyone know what actually happened to it? I never heard or saw anything on it after 01 with the bombings of Baghdad

>01
>Bombing Baghdad

F-117 has been retired for the 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th time.

Imagine that, something old losses its effectiveness.

Wow.

[Mitheldalond]

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...

No, because that's wrong.

Now, let's address this issue first:

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.

The A-10 entered service in 1977, over a decade after such tanks showed up. It is therefore likely that the military knew it wouldn't be killing tanks with the GAU-8 before the plane ever entered service. Yet they neither up-gunned it, nor dropped the gun and used the weight saved to carry more bombs and missiles. Why? The logical answer is that the A-10 wasn't intended to be killing tanks with its gun in the first place.

The gun is their to take out IFVs, APCs, and other lightly armored vehicles that aren't worth a Maverick. It's also quite useful for vaporizing dug-in infantry and their cover at 4,200 rounds per minute. This should be fairly obvious from the ammo it carries: HEI and API, neither of which are particularly useful against heavily armored vehicles. If it was supposed to kill tanks, it would be firing APFSDS.

The GAU-8 is not what makes the A-10 a tank buster. What makes the A-10 a tank buster are the 6 AGM-65 Mavericks and dozens of 70mm rockets it carries.

Next point: the A-10 is not equipped with air-to-air radar. This means that it cannot track or target enemy aircraft. The plane will not help calculate a firing solution for the gun against an aerial target. Even some later versions of the P-51 Mustang had radar assisted lead-calculating gunsights. This means that you have a better chance of getting an air-to-air gun kill against an F-15 in a WWII fighter than in an A-10.

Helicopters are not a replacement for the A-10. The A-10 can carry a heavier payload, and has almost 3 times as many hardpoints as an Apache. The A-10 can also carry bigger, longer-ranged missiles than the Apache (Maverick vs Hellfire). The A-10 can also carry useful things like laser-guided Paveways, JDAMS, wind-corrected munitions dispensers, cluster bombs, and plain old iron bombs. Attack helicopters cannot carry any of these.

The Harrier has no real advantages over the A-10 either. The A-10 has more hardpoints, almost twice the payload weight, a better gun, and more armor (as in, any armor at all) than the Harrier. It also has a better range and loiter time than the Harrier (the A-10's combat radius on Wikipedia includes loiter and combat time, the Harrier's doesn't.).

The F-16 can only carry 1,000 pounds more ordnance than the A-10 (17,000 lb vs 16,000 lb), and has the same or fewer hardpoints (depends on if you count the wingtip rails for AAMs). The F-16 is also much, much faster than the A-10. This means that it will have much, much less time to acquire and engage targets during an attack run than A-10. The range of a Maverick is about 22 km. That's a very short engagement window when you're moving at near or over mach 1. The F-16 also has little to no range advantage over the A-10. It is also unarmored, and is significantly more expensive. It's a more costly loss when an F-16 gets shot down. Not to mention the fact that there are many better things for an F-16 to be doing than CAS.

[Black Hand]

I can see that being possible even if the numbers were a quarter of what was reported it would still be quite decent.

the Iraqi air force was highly ineffective throughout the conflict. they were outmatched.

F-117 anyone know what actually happened to it? I never heard or saw anything on it after 01 with the bombings of Baghdad

>01
>Bombing Baghdad

F-117 has been retired for the 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000th time.

Imagine that, something old losses its effectiveness.

Wow.

I know it was. In fairness I was 6 at the time so be happy I remember that.

from cursory research it was simply replaced by multi-role aircraft and the aircraft was no longer suitable.

[Gear 1]

Not for nothing, folks, but criticizing individual platforms totally ignores the tactical concept of an Alpha Strike package, combining flights of different models of aircraft tailored to specific roles in the course of accomplishing the mission at hand.

While an F16 is capable of CAS, an A10 can do the job better. Fighting Falcon was supposed to be a light fighter, oddly intended to be jack of many trades but true master of none. It serves as an interceptor with fairly short legs in units like the "Jersey Devils" of the NJ Air National Guard, as an attack platform with the Boys From Syracuse of the NY Air National Guard.

I'm former Navy, so will swear loyalty to my last breath to tail hook planes. Tomcats, Hornets and Super Hornets all the live long day.

[Vancon]

Not for nothing, folks, but criticizing individual platforms totally ignores the tactical concept of an Alpha Strike package, combining flights of different models of aircraft tailored to specific roles in the course of accomplishing the mission at hand.

While an F16 is capable of CAS, an A10 can do the job better. Fighting Falcon was supposed to be a light fighter, oddly intended to be jack of many trades but true master of none. It serves as an interceptor with fairly short legs in units like the "Jersey Devils" of the NJ Air National Guard, as an attack platform with the Boys From Syracuse of the NY Air National Guard.

I'm former Navy, so will swear loyalty to my last breath to tail hook planes. Tomcats, Hornets and Super Hornets all the live long day.

Hell to the yes!

[Gear 1]

And... Slight corrections.

EA18G Growler is a tactical EW variant of the FA18E/F Super Hornet. IMHO, a much more viable platform than the Prowler. Half the crew (2 vice 4), and Growler can take names with the Iron Hand mission. It doesn't just have to carry ECM equipment, it can mount HARM to knock out enemy air defense radar sites and active SAM site radars. If not packing heat of its own, the Growler can pinpoint for other strike aircraft carrying appropriate forms of ordnance. C model Hornets were capable of serving as a platform for HARM and flew helper to the Prowler thereby increasing the amount of ordnance available against Russian style SAM radar chains, such as that which was sold to Iraq and other Warsaw Pact client states.

"Have you ever flown Iron Hand, Grafton?"

"No, Virgil. What's that?"

"Other than packing the Shrike and a couple extra black boxes, you're still driving an E model Intruder. We get to play chicken with enemy radars. Roll in hot and get them to paint us. Once I get their angle, we launch the Shrike and bug the hell out of there. We get to keep the other fast movers alive."

"I'm in."