45 replies to this topic

[Damia Savon]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 April 2016 - 04:50 PM, said:

And in the end...it will still be outperformed in every role by dedicated role aircraft. Poor ugly thing can't even stand up to a fully loaded F16, let alone perform close air support for troops with half the loiter time of an A10 (or effective firepower, airframe durability or low stall speed), is outdueled by last Gen Russian aircraft (su35 is a beast though, in all fairness) and well.... the F35b..... has the Harrier ever really been that efficient or effective an aircraft for the USMC? So now they get a stealthy, expensive version that has to wait 2 years to (hopefully) get it's gun pod.

boon·dog·gle
ˈbo͞onˌdäɡəl,-ˌdôɡəl/
NORTH AMERICAN (informal)
noun
1. work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.

Since the USAF doesn't want the ground support role, and it never did, it should just turn over the A-10 to the Army and Marines. The A-10 is the best ground support aircraft since the skyraider.
Advance tech is not always the best tech.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Bishop Steiner, on 02 April 2016 - 06:23 PM, said:

actually, they tend to be numeric, with most gaps from failed prototypes and such. But the Air Force seems to have stepped away from their own designation process. But it's a lot easier to understand Gaps when it's the rule, not the exception (like with Fighters).

Even so, my neuro-atypical mind finds it as yet another annoying exhibit of the lack of cohesive logic that exemplifies the neurotypical world.

I do believe the Vulcans would have been more inclined to go to war with Humans than the Klingons or Romulans, to prevent our species illogical nature from spreading and further tainting the galaxy.

Sorry but most militaries deviate from the straight production numbering system all of the time, typically when a next "generation" is developed. M1 Abrams after the M60, the M551 Sheridan based on a light armored platform design fell in between the two, etc etc. Not worth wasting the brain cell on to figure out really.

Damia Savon, on 03 April 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

Since the USAF doesn't want the ground support role, and it never did, it should just turn over the A-10 to the Army and Marines. The A-10 is the best ground support aircraft since the skyraider.
Advance tech is not always the best tech.

Only against second and third world opponents. It's great within it's niche (no argument from me there) but it's not considered "on par" with near-peer or first-peer adversaries.

[Bishop Steiner]

DAYLEET, on 03 April 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

well the point i wanted to make in my first post but derailed myself going into the more generalized "they all have problems" was that we wouldnt have know those problem in the past before the plane went into service but we live in a social media era and a multy country project like that is bound to fkup. While the F35 price exploded and i bet someone bright told them before hand before politics shut him up, things werent really cheaper back in the days, old people like to believe that.

You know you can adjust things for inflation, right? And doing so, no the F16/18 didn't spiral out of control liek the F35 has, and also saw significant more promise for the money invested, even while developing.

Unit cost of the F16 in 1998, for instance was approx 14.5 million, which adjusted for inflation is 21.3 million in 2015 dollars (my inflation calculator is last years). Unit cost (currently) per F35? 100 million (as of 2015). Almost 5x the amount even adjusted for inflation. F14s would translate to 55 million (they were never considered a cost effective plane, just an effective one) F4 Phantoms converted to 2015 dollars? 18 million. F22? A staggering 150 million per unit in 2009 (167mil today) which is why they are discontinued.... though at least they seem to work.

A10? 18 million in today's bucks. F/A-18s? 32 Million.

Sure neither has stealth, but Russian Radar and targeting can already track F35 stealth. Sooooooo..........

Lukoi Banacek, on 03 April 2016 - 05:52 PM, said:

Sorry but most militaries deviate from the straight production numbering system all of the time, typically when a next "generation" is developed. M1 Abrams after the M60, the M551 Sheridan based on a light armored platform design fell in between the two, etc etc. Not worth wasting the brain cell on to figure out really.



Only against second and third world opponents. It's great within it's niche (no argument from me there) but it's not considered "on par" with near-peer or first-peer adversaries.

It's "niche" is the realistic most common use in modern warfare. Not too many huge conventional tank on tank/jet on jet wars happening these days. Russia still fears the A10, as does China and Korea, because it's "niche" removes their conventional ground forces, rather effectively.

So the concept of the Army/Marines policing their own "niche" with the worlds most effective unit for that niche, and freeing up the Lawndart Jockey in the USAF to chase after their go fast dreams, is actually rather sensible.

[Y E O N N E]

Stealth isn't about remaining completely invisible, it's about being able to fire first. Every stealth system ever devised was broken upon its implementation...the question is just how close do you have to be to break it?

[Lukoi Banacek]

Bishop Steiner, on 03 April 2016 - 06:20 PM, said:

You know you can adjust things for inflation, right? And doing so, no the F16/18 didn't spiral out of control liek the F35 has, and also saw significant more promise for the money invested, even while developing.

Unit cost of the F16 in 1998, for instance was approx 14.5 million, which adjusted for inflation is 21.3 million in 2015 dollars (my inflation calculator is last years). Unit cost (currently) per F35? 100 million (as of 2015). Almost 5x the amount even adjusted for inflation. F14s would translate to 55 million (they were never considered a cost effective plane, just an effective one) F4 Phantoms converted to 2015 dollars? 18 million. F22? A staggering 150 million per unit in 2009 (167mil today) which is why they are discontinued.... though at least they seem to work.

A10? 18 million in today's bucks. F/A-18s? 32 Million.

Sure neither has stealth, but Russian Radar and targeting can already track F35 stealth. Sooooooo..........


It's "niche" is the realistic most common use in modern warfare. Not too many huge conventional tank on tank/jet on jet wars happening these days. Russia still fears the A10, as does China and Korea, because it's "niche" removes their conventional ground forces, rather effectively.

So the concept of the Army/Marines policing their own "niche" with the worlds most effective unit for that niche, and freeing up the Lawndart Jockey in the USAF to chase after their go fast dreams, is actually rather sensible.

Actually, near-peer adversaries do not by and large fear the A-10, because it can be knocked down with SA systems that abound within their formations.

USAF is not assured of air superiority in the Crimean, Eastern Europe or China by any large stretch. That's simple fact these days. Don't get me wrong...as a recipient of the aid of an A-10 on more than one occasion, I'm a huge fan, but it overstates the case to make it sound like they have universal access to the sky against the larger powers of the world. We love to see them in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Horn of East Africa etc. We likely would not see them in some other significant hot spots. Even with them being maintained in the inventory, a quick and cursory search of where A-10 squadrons are fielded these days would indicate that Korea/Eastern Europe are not their bread and butter opportunities these days. They absorb ground fire incredibly well, but don't shed large SAMS with equal aplomb and that's what China, Russia and some other near-peer adversaries would field in any fight involving US or US augmented forces.

Is the quotes around niche supposed to denote something akin to sarcasm or something? Not sure why ya keep doing that

[kesmai]

Holy great textwall of china...