20517 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

SMDMadCow, on 11 July 2017 - 10:16 AM, said:

When it's fiction written by a civilian?

plot armor ftw.....

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 11 July 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:

F-35 = Boondoggle....

Some of the USAF arguments I've heard for replacing the A-10 with it include using B-1B... I mean a freaking strategic bomber for C.A.S.?!?!

The sad part about the F-35, to be able to do the jobs of the air-craft it is replacing has to give up it's stealth characteristics to do it by mounting external payload... The variant that has an internal cannon has something around 182 rounds for it... or it can have 220 rounds in the external version that is pod mounted with 'stealth features'... Didn't the US military learn anything from the F-4 Phantom during the early part of the Vietnam war... having a cannon on a fighter is a good idea...

There really needs to be an XTRO: Pre-jumpship boondoggles... perfect place to put the F-35 and a few others.

supposedly it's finally coming into it's own but even if it becomes successful at some point... at the cost overruns and sheer amount of time invested (and wasted) it will still be a boondoggle... and honestly a JoAT fighter makes no sense. I suppose the brass feel that since the JoAT approach worked for MBTs (aka why have light, Medium, Heavy and Tank Destroyers when the MBT does most of those well... aside from the payload weight part which has bit the military logistics in the *** more than once)
what you will get is a plane 1/2 as effective as CAS as the A10 and on a good day 2/3 as effective at air superiority and dog fighting as say.... the Su35.... but it has stealth..... that russian missile guidance have already compromised (supposedly). Woo Hoo!

Oh and a flight helmet that could break your neck if you weigh under 150 lbs or so. That's always a bonus.

And hey we can add the Osprey, the new Ford Aircraft Carrier, Littoral Combat Ships, etc.....

But hey they might finally have gotten the military pistol thing sorted out..... because you know..pistols win wars.... so that's a big win right there....... *rolls eyes*

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 11 July 2017 - 12:01 PM.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

supposedly it's finally coming into it's own but even if it becomes successful at some point... at the cost overruns and sheer amount of time invested (and wasted) it will still be a boondoggle... and honestly a JoAT fighter makes no sense. I suppose the brass feel that since the JoAT approach worked for MBTs (aka why have light, Medium, Heavy and Tank Destroyers when the MBT does most of those well... aside from the payload weight part which has bit the military logistics in the *** more than once)
what you will get is a plane 1/2 as effective as CAS as the A10 and on a good day 2/3 as effective at air superiority and dog fighting as say.... the Su35.... but it has stealth..... that russian missile guidance have already compromised (supposedly). Woo Hoo!

Oh and a flight helmet that could break your neck if you weigh under 150 lbs or so. That's always a bonus.

And hey we can add the Osprey, the new Ford Aircraft Carrier, Littoral Combat Ships, etc.....

But hey they might finally have gotten the military pistol thing sorted out..... because you know..pistols win wars.... so that's a big win right there....... *rolls eyes*

To be fair, Canada really needed to replace the our trooper's hand guns... we've been using the same ones (no seriously the same ones) since the second world war...

The Osprey is actually pretty good at what it does, it just doesn't do anything other than that....

As for the whole JoAT program, I know it is a throw back to the F-4 Phantom... as far as I am aware, the Phantom has been the only aircraft to be used by all three branches of the US military that maintains fixed wing aircraft. Logistically it makes sens, less parts to keep on hand, you can swap pilots around easier... But asking the F-35 to do the jobs of highly specialized aircraft when the F-35 cannot even do 50% of what those aircraft did just seems a bit short sighted to me.

By the way, like the new sig.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 11 July 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

To be fair, Canada really needed to replace the our trooper's hand guns... we've been using the same ones (no seriously the same ones) since the second world war...

The Osprey is actually pretty good at what it does, it just doesn't do anything other than that....

As for the whole JoAT program, I know it is a throw back to the F-4 Phantom... as far as I am aware, the Phantom has been the only aircraft to be used by all three branches of the US military that maintains fixed wing aircraft. Logistically it makes sens, less parts to keep on hand, you can swap pilots around easier... But asking the F-35 to do the jobs of highly specialized aircraft when the F-35 cannot even do 50% of what those aircraft did just seems a bit short sighted to me.

By the way, like the new sig.

point wasn't that.... the M9s are getting pretty dang worn out (apparently not as robust as a Browning Hi Power, and probably have seen more use and brain dead abuse, on average to be fair). the point was that while handguns are kind of important...on the long list of things that actually matter to a military? The rank somewhere after decent combat knifes and entrenching tools.

WW1 for instance, the 1911 accounted for such an infinitesimal amount of enemy dead as to have been an utter non factor. Yes. A handful of individuals likely killed another person with their handgun, and or saved their own life in so doing. But as to actual influence on the outcome of any battle, let alone the war? Goose Egg.

WW2 pretty much the same story. Despite there being much better handguns in use, like the Hi Power, P38, Tokarev and Radom (and of which I'd take over the GI issue 1911A1 ).

The point? Instead of billions of dollars and years of testing... the bloody army could have gone down to Bass Pro Shops, and bulk ordered half a million Glocks over the counter, and it would have about as much actual impact on the operational ability of the US Armed Forces.... aka...none.

The 320 appears to be a pretty decent pistol, and unlike the Glock it is modular (still not sure if that's really as big a thing as some are making it out to be, but it's not a bad thing, at the very least).

Honestly though the bigger impact is primarily the nearly half lb less weight being carried, and element resistance of polymer.

Handgun selection is somewhat more important for the SOCOM obviously... but end of the day, really the only time I can justify that much time and money being spent is for Law Enforcement Agencies, since the handgun is the first line of combat in those cases.

I think further studies and work on the effectiveness off the 5.56 and or replacement thereof for M4s (which FN makes a very nice model of for the US Armed Forces) would be much more useful for the military and the tax payer.

Or using the same money and time invested into the MHP into hiring an outside non military fat cat contractor to redesign the flight helmets of the F35 so trim a lb or so of weight so they aren't potential high G death traps for women and light male pilots.

[CK16]

I always say the F-35 program more like the F-16 & 18 programs. Alot of parallels to the F-16 program back in the day (and for that time the F-16 was quite an advanced fighter and alot of technology had to be worked out for it). But yea neither are close to the A-10 or the F-15c/F-22.

And honestly if they kept it at "we want stealthier and modernized version of the F-16,F-18, & AV-8B" the program would have been alot more successful.

Also the USAF has been trying for ages to get rid of the A-10 hell they even tried mounting it's 30mm in a pod on an F-16 and that failed as well....F-35 won't fare any better

Edited by CK16, 11 July 2017 - 01:08 PM.

[Metus regem]

CK16, on 11 July 2017 - 12:57 PM, said:

I always say the F-35 program more like the F-16 & 18 programs. Alot of parallels to the F-16 program back in the day (and for that time the F-16 was quite an advanced fighter and alot of technology had to be worked out for it). But yea neither are close to the A-10 or the F-15c/F-22.

And honestly if they kept it at "we want stealthier and modernized version of the F-16,F-18, & AV-8B" the program would have been alot more successful.

Also the USAF has been trying for ages to get rid of the A-10 hell they even tried mounting it's 30mm in a pod on an F-16 and that failed as well....F-35 won't fare any better

Yup.... but so long as USAF generals are willing to go in front of S.A.S.C. and say that a Strategic Bomber makes a good close air support unit, there is no hope.

[CK16]

Well I see thier point in a current conflict like A-stan a bomber can loiter for quite a long time and packed full of JDAM's rain them in all day. But yea that's more like flying arty strike vs the like motor strikes from gunships ect (right on station quick cheap ect.)

But I get what you mean

(BTW S.A.C. is no longer a thing I guess, it's some other word now lol). But yea SAC has had an odd history of military budget...that whole nuclear powered bomber yea....that was a thing.....

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 11 July 2017 - 01:17 PM, said:

Yup.... but so long as USAF generals are willing to go in front of S.A.S.C. and say that a Strategic Bomber makes a good close air support unit, there is no hope.

you just know the world is backwards when senators are the ones actually telling the generals they have to keep the A10....

who'da thunk a politco would be more concerned for the boots on the ground then the military leaders... of course, most generals seem to be more politician then military men, so MEH. (not a terribly new trend. Just look at the systematized incompetence Wellington had to overcome to defeat Napoleon)

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2017 - 01:42 PM, said:

you just know the world is backwards when senators are the ones actually telling the generals they have to keep the A10....

who'da thunk a politco would be more concerned for the boots on the ground then the military leaders... of course, most generals seem to be more politician then military men, so MEH. (not a terribly new trend. Just look at the systematized incompetence Wellington had to overcome to defeat Napoleon)

In my experience, military officers, stop being military officers after hitting O3 or O4, O5 and up and you start being a politician... But that makes sense at O5 you've got 300 to 1000 men and women under your command and you are not a field officer anymore.

[Odanan]

CK16, on 11 July 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

[stuff]

Metus regem, on 11 July 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:

[stuff]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2017 - 11:53 AM, said:

[stuff]

Nerds.

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 11 July 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

Nerds.

just jealous that all y'all are famous for is bikini wax.....

[Metus regem]

Odanan, on 11 July 2017 - 01:58 PM, said:

Nerds.

Hey! I served in the US Army... it's not nerd stuff to me...

But I did try to swing it back to BT, by saying that we need to do a pre-jumpship XTRO and toss the F-35 in there.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 11 July 2017 - 01:53 PM, said:

In my experience, military officers, stop being military officers after hitting O3 or O4, O5 and up and you start being a politician... But that makes sense at O5 you've got 300 to 1000 men and women under your command and you are not a field officer anymore.

Once a soldier forgets where he comes from (and that's part of the problem...too few officers are very truly soldiers to begin with) then one has no place commanding and representing those people. Same should be true of politicians, etc... but lets face it, aristocracy never went away it just took on new names.

[Metus regem]

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

Once a soldier forgets where he comes from (and that's part of the problem...too few officers are very truly soldiers to begin with) then one has no place commanding and representing those people. Same should be true of politicians, etc... but lets face it, aristocracy never went away it just took on new names.

Very true, I started out as an Officer, but I always made time for my men and women... mind you I knew some guys in my old unit that couldn't be bothered to make time for their ground crew, they were jerks.

[CK16]

Eh I just have always had a fascination with military tech watch alot of history channel as a kid, now with alot of free time on my hands some nights watching alot of documentaries on youtube or just videos of military tech in general there. Lately oddly enough it is SAC stuff from B-36 to B-1B been cramming to much in there o.I

Btw I did not know the B-1B carries the most ordinance in the US aircraft inventory....even more then the B-52 #themoreyouknow

Edited by CK16, 11 July 2017 - 02:08 PM.

[Metus regem]

CK16, on 11 July 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

Eh I just have always had a fascination with military tech watch alot of history channel as a kid, now with alot of free time on my hands some nights watching alot of documentaries on youtube or just videos of military tech in general there. Lately oddly enough it is SAC stuff from B-36 to B-1B been cramming to much in there o.I

Btw I did not know the B-1B carries the more ordinance in the US aircraft inventory....even more then the B-52 #themoreyouknow

Yup.... every summer when I was a kid me and my dad would drive back east through the states and stop at both T.A.C. and S.A.C., both at the time were active air bases that gave tours to the public... good times.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 11 July 2017 - 02:05 PM, said:

Very true, I started out as an Officer, but I always made time for my men and women... mind you I knew some guys in my old unit that couldn't be bothered to make time for their ground crew, they were jerks.

Eh, isn't it still pretty much a requirement of pilots to be Officers? (are there even still Warrant Officers in the military?).

I get not wanting to turn over multimillion dollar, easy to crash and destroy stuff to the rank and file (crashing a tank probably a little less destructive than an Apache)....

But yeah..... there is a reason that some officers get "retired" in pretty much every war ever fought.

[Bishop Steiner]

Metus regem, on 11 July 2017 - 02:10 PM, said:

Yup.... every summer when I was a kid me and my dad would drive back east through the states and stop at both T.A.C. and S.A.C., both at the time were active air bases that gave tours to the public... good times.

I spent my childhood thinking I was going to go into the military.... and never did. Funny that.

Still have nothing but respect for those who serve, in ANY country, though. Well, maybe not 100% true, since there are some folks who put on the uniform who are despicable scum, regardless (I don't care if a guy has 6 purple hearts and a medal of valor... it he's a ******, racist, etc... he is scum, period).

Probably in part due to how many of my relatives are active or former service folk though, I get truly upset by fake vets, and when I see the guys on the ground get betrayed by their "leaders" be they military or political. For myself I just realized I could not serve a Commander in Chief I didn't respect, or enforce policies I didn't agree with.

But still have a healthy fascination with all things military, despite. Or maybe unhealthy.

[Zergling]

Nema Nabojiv, on 11 July 2017 - 05:45 AM, said:

Hollander was in Mech Commander that's why.
And I gonna buy for that reason alone regardless if its good or bad in MWO.

MechCommander version of the Hollander was the 45 ton Hollander II.

CK16, on 11 July 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:

I mean it's sad to see the F-35 price climbing (I mainly blame that they keep adding requirements every week to its list....)

Last time I checked, the F-35 price was actually dropping (and not because of Trump, despite his boasts).

Metus regem, on 11 July 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:

The sad part about the F-35, to be able to do the jobs of the air-craft it is replacing has to give up it's stealth characteristics to do it by mounting external payload... The variant that has an internal cannon has something around 182 rounds for it... or it can have 220 rounds in the external version that is pod mounted with 'stealth features'... Didn't the US military learn anything from the F-4 Phantom during the early part of the Vietnam war... having a cannon on a fighter is a good idea...

None of the planes it is replacing can do the sort of jobs the F-35 can do due to its stealth though.

As for fighter aircraft guns, there are strong arguments against their usefulness in modern air combat; WVR missiles are significantly more reliable and far deadlier since the Vietnam War.
Since the introduction of all-aspect IR seeker missiles for example, there has been very few air-to-air kills with guns.

Eg, in the 1982 Falklands War, only two air to air kills were scored with guns; a C-130 and a Puma SA330 helicopter, both by British Harriers with 30mm ADEN cannon.
Then in the 1991 Gulf War, the only gun kill was a helicopter shot down by an A-10.

And WVR missiles have only become more deadly since then, with the introduction of off-boresight and lock-on-after launch capabilities.

Hell, even in Vietnam missiles still made up the vast majority of air to air kills scored, even after the F-4E and its internal gun was introduced.

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

what you will get is a plane 1/2 as effective as CAS as the A10 and on a good day 2/3 as effective at air superiority and dog fighting as say.... the Su35.... but it has stealth..... that russian missile guidance have already compromised (supposedly). Woo Hoo!

The F-35 will certainly be far more effective than the A-10 in contested air space defended by modern air defense though. Despite its ridiculous durability, the A-10 is simply too vulnerable when facing that.
In that sort of situation, the A-10 would be forced to maintain high altitude and stand-off distances, which would render it largely ineffective, as it lacks the sensors and stand-off weapons capability.
The F-35 would be able to be closer to the battle area due to its stealth, and its far superior sensor systems would allow it to remain more relevant than the A-10.

That said, a purpose designed 'stealth CAS' aircraft would certainly be more effective than the F-35, but the US military would have never had the budget for that.


As for F-35 vs Su-35, the Su-35 is certainly the better dog-fighter, although the F-35 shouldn't be written off in that area either.
In the air superiority role, the F-35 is very likely to be superior to the Su-35, simply because of how useful stealth is in evading detection.
Like, the F-35 can approach to within AIM-120 'no escape zone' and launch a missile before it is within the range at which the Su-35's radar can detect the F-35, and that is a decisive advantage.

Claims that Russia has or is going to soon defeat the F-35's stealth are likely completely false or extremely exaggerated; the West has no shortage of highly advanced radars to test the F-35 against, and there hasn't been a peep from any Western source with claims the F-35's stealth doesn't hold up in testing.

Bishop Steiner, on 11 July 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

And hey we can add the Osprey, the new Ford Aircraft Carrier, Littoral Combat Ships, etc.....

Osprey is working fine since it got its bugs worked out, and the Ford will probably be the same.

Littoral Combat Ships... yeah, those are junk, just not suited for anything but low intensity naval warfare (eg, killing Iranian fast attack boats armed with RPGs, or chasing down pirates).
The USN is trying to salvage the LCS program by enlarging the designs so they can fit in anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles, but it is looking like they might just go with an entirely new design instead.
As for the LCS already built and being built... they will just be extremely expensive mine-hunters with unnecessary capabilities (like helicopter decks/hangers and 45+ knot speeds).
In the air superiority role, the F-35 is very likely to be superior to the Su-35, simply because of how useful stealth is in evading detection.

Edited by Zergling, 11 July 2017 - 03:48 PM.

[TheArisen]

Metus regem, on 11 July 2017 - 12:14 PM, said:

To be fair, Canada really needed to replace the our trooper's hand guns... we've been using the same ones (no seriously the same ones) since the second world war...

The Osprey is actually pretty good at what it does, it just doesn't do anything other than that....

As for the whole JoAT program, I know it is a throw back to the F-4 Phantom... as far as I am aware, the Phantom has been the only aircraft to be used by all three branches of the US military that maintains fixed wing aircraft. Logistically it makes sens, less parts to keep on hand, you can swap pilots around easier... But asking the F-35 to do the jobs of highly specialized aircraft when the F-35 cannot even do 50% of what those aircraft did just seems a bit short sighted to me.

By the way, like the new sig.

I've gotta jump in on this F35 hate... The F35 is actually a fantastic aircraft. During this past Red Flag it held a 17 to 1 kdr and destroyed all ground targets without ever being locked onto. It's actually better than the F16 in every way & has stealth.

Many people have this idea that stealth = undetectable. This is just not the case and has never been claimed. Stealth stops an enemy from getting a weapon lock. Low band radar can give a you a general idea of where a stealth aircraft is but it can't track it, much less lock onto it.

When facing either the F22 or F35 pilots always talk about how they were shot down without ever knowing where it came from. There were some early hiccups as the new tech was "teething" but has since started showing it's dominance. Look at the F16, it crashed all the time when it was first getting started.

Multirole aircraft are pretty normal in most air forces and the F35 actually excels in all of it's missions. As for it facing the Su-35, it's hard to say at this point but worst case scenario thats what the F22 is for.

Also about the Ford class carrier, it's going to keep carriers relavant due to it's ability to mount laser & rail gun defense systems. This is especially evident considering it's 600 MW power output compared to the Nimitz's 100. These defenses basically make the threat of missiles obsolete. It's EM catapult will also reduced maintenance on aircraft because it doesn't jerk forward like steam catapults do.

For the Seawolf subs, yeah there's only 3 of them but they did spawn the new Virginia class.