The cheaper option is one where you don't have to risk losing a pilot because your hydraulics systems got fucked up.
Advertisement
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:59 am
by Kubra » Thu Feb 25, 2021 8:59 am
Gonna have to concur here. Furthermore, unit and operating costs aren't significantly cheaper here, but drones can be lost without a pilot getting at best ransomed and at worst beheaded for a propaganda video.
by Mousters » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:00 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Kubra wrote: Yes. And? Is that a problem? I mean, it's cheaper, isn't it?
I suppose what this question really comes down to is: what war are you fighting in your head?
The cheaper option is one where you don't have to risk losing a pilot because your hydraulics systems got fucked up.
by The Federal Government of Iowa » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:01 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:i really don't think iraq or yugoslavia are shining examples of peak air-defense networks as seen in peer to peer conflicts.
A-10's problem is rlly the manned thing and the ECM dating from 1980's thing. And the no defence vs MANPADS thing.
Basically you're putting a man in the plane flying at stupidly low altitudes where he can be shot at by everybody, yet not providing him with the means to defend himself.
by The Federal Government of Iowa » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:02 am
Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Yeah, the F-35 is trying to be too many things at once. The USAF should really just focus on its 6th Gen fighter which they've been playing with for a while. The F-22 is sufficient for air superiority roles right now, and the F16/18 and the A-10 are all still great for ground pounding. But seriously, next-gen or new A-10 equivalent when?? We need a new one! omg how about a stealth A-10? I would cry tears of joy XD
All things aside, I think we should give the Pentagon a little bit of a break. This is their first attempt at a VTOL aircraft of this sort, and there's a learning curve for sure.
new technology is expensive. in other news, water is wet.
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:06 am
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:MiG-25 has a turning circle measured in Texas's at mach 2.5, its operational max speed.
by Polish Prussian Commonwealth » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:07 am
The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:A-10's problem is rlly the manned thing and the ECM dating from 1980's thing. And the no defence vs MANPADS thing.
Basically you're putting a man in the plane flying at stupidly low altitudes where he can be shot at by everybody, yet not providing him with the means to defend himself.
The A-10 has proven itself to be a really very survivable aircraft. Those things can be shot at a heck ton and still make it home alive. There's a reason those engines are set so far apart.
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:07 am
Kubra wrote:I suppose what this question really comes down to is: what war are you fighting in your head?
by The Federal Government of Iowa » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:08 am
Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:The Federal Government of Iowa wrote:The A-10 has proven itself to be a really very survivable aircraft. Those things can be shot at a heck ton and still make it home alive. There's a reason those engines are set so far apart.
it hasn't 'proven' anything at all though
by Kubra » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:09 am
Nonsense. A single pilot and A-10 lost, had they instead been lost? A couple million maybe for the pilot, and the A-10? Theoretically little, insofar as it's already paid off a good deal of its value. Maybe stick its costs into whatever replaces it, which is a small or giant waste depending on the replacement.Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Kubra wrote: Yes. And? Is that a problem? I mean, it's cheaper, isn't it?
I suppose what this question really comes down to is: what war are you fighting in your head?
The cheaper option is one where you don't have to risk losing a pilot because your hydraulics systems got fucked up.
So an imminently theoretical war? A fulda gap scenario?
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:15 am
Kubra wrote:So an imminently theoretical war? A fulda gap scenario?
by Kubra » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:18 am
Sure, but good god what fun it must have been to be the armchair staff assigned to sitting around a table and roleplaying that war *for a salary*.The New California Republic wrote:Kubra wrote:So an imminently theoretical war? A fulda gap scenario?
As an aside I was always amused by the Fulda Gap thing, it seemed like a colossal red herring, as so much emphasis was placed upon it that in reality the Gap would have been so heavily mined and shelled that anything trying to take the corridor would have been annihilated.
by Polish Prussian Commonwealth » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:22 am
by Kubra » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:23 am
The New California Republic wrote:Iraq didn't have "basically no SAMs", sorry. It had ~16,000 surface-to-air missiles, made up of about 20+ SA-2 batteries, 25+ SA-3 batteries, 36+ SA-6 batteries, 20+ SA-8 batteries, 50+ Rolands, 400 SA-9s, 200 SA-13s, 6,500 Grails, and hundreds of Gremlins. So don't try to say that Iraq had "basically no SAMs", as it is patently untrue. Added to that it had thousands of AA guns.
by The Federal Government of Iowa » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:24 am
Kubra wrote:Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:"many missions" against people whose AA consisted of AKs pointing at the sky maybeThe New California Republic wrote:Iraq didn't have "basically no SAMs", sorry. It had ~16,000 surface-to-air missiles, made up of about 20+ SA-2 batteries, 25+ SA-3 batteries, 36+ SA-6 batteries, 20+ SA-8 batteries, 50+ Rolands, 400 SA-9s, 200 SA-13s, 6,500 Grails, and hundreds of Gremlins. So don't try to say that Iraq had "basically no SAMs", as it is patently untrue. Added to that it had thousands of AA guns.
by Polish Prussian Commonwealth » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:26 am
The New California Republic wrote:Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:MiG-25 has a turning circle measured in Texas's at mach 2.5, its operational max speed.
Yes, the West thought for decades that its operational speed was mach 3.2, on the basis of objects they tracked on radar at that speed. It made them think they routinely operated at those speeds. Turned out they were test drones.Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:i really don't think iraq or yugoslavia are shining examples of peak air-defense networks as seen in peer to peer conflicts.
Iraq didn't have "basically no SAMs", sorry. It had ~16,000 surface-to-air missiles, made up of about 20+ SA-2 batteries, 25+ SA-3 batteries, 36+ SA-6 batteries, 20+ SA-8 batteries, 50+ Rolands, 400 SA-9s, 200 SA-13s, 6,500 Grails, and hundreds of Gremlins. So don't try to say that Iraq had "basically no SAMs", as it is patently untrue. Added to that it had thousands of AA guns.
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:29 am
Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:okay but did it ever use those in any way that was remotely effective
because generally the impression i got was that iraqi SAMs were hilariously ineffective for what they were slinging.
by Polish Prussian Commonwealth » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:32 am
The New California Republic wrote:Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:okay but did it ever use those in any way that was remotely effective
because generally the impression i got was that iraqi SAMs were hilariously ineffective for what they were slinging.
It was only ineffective because the Coalition forces threw huge amounts of resources to SEAD and EW support.
by Qhevak » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:32 am
Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:okay but did it ever use those in any way that was remotely effective
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:34 am
by Kubra » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:35 am
In fairness, being a little guy invaded by the US and company is a basically an invasion of space aliens.Qhevak wrote:Polish Prussian Commonwealth wrote:okay but did it ever use those in any way that was remotely effective
No - Iraqi air defences were mainly focused on defending vs Iran, Syria and Israel which meant huge gaps in coverage for forces headed from Saudi Arabia. They were also using outdated equipment, centralized so that individual launch sites couldn't network with each other without passing info up to their commanders, and most operators were so terrified of anti-radar missiles that they launched their SAMs practically unguided.
by Senkaku » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:39 am
by The Federal Government of Iowa » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:41 am
by Qhevak » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:45 am
Kubra wrote:In fairness, being a little guy invaded by the US and company is a basically an invasion of space aliens.Qhevak wrote:No - Iraqi air defences were mainly focused on defending vs Iran, Syria and Israel which meant huge gaps in coverage for forces headed from Saudi Arabia. They were also using outdated equipment, centralized so that individual launch sites couldn't network with each other without passing info up to their commanders, and most operators were so terrified of anti-radar missiles that they launched their SAMs practically unguided.
by The New California Republic » Thu Feb 25, 2021 9:45 am
Qhevak wrote:[...] most operators were so terrified of anti-radar missiles that they launched their SAMs practically unguided.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Dauchh Palki, Hurdergaryp
Advertisement