Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Curious Droid"
channel.
-
16
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
@exidy-yt It rocked the battlefield by what? Getting shot down and damaged so often that Chuck Horner pulled it out of missions against the Iraqi Republican guard? Very few losses? Six A-10s and one OA-10 was lost, meaning it suffered the same amount of losses as the Tornado, which was considered a debacle.
"F16s cannot loiter near as long over the battlefield" - You don't need to loiter when you can do the job faster. Also, loitering is suicide anywhere that isn't an extremely permissive environment.
"suck at close air support in comparison" - Because most of the CAS knowledge is stuck in A-10 schools. Had the A-10 been retired in 1993 as originally planned, all that knowledge would have gone to other aircraft. It's not an aircraft issue, it's a pilot and training issue. Strike Eagle crews did not like the possibility of performing gun runs at night. They spent months perfecting their skills in simulators to get the hang of how to do it without killing yourself. Now they say they did gun runs on an almost daily basis with the F-15E during the GWOT. It's all about being allowed to put in the work.
"Even a Super Tucano would be better then an F-16 in CAS" - A super tucano would be better than the A-10. Almost as fast with a turboprop, which means huge fuel savings and long loiter times. Can take off from bases much closer to the action, so the slightly lower speed is more than made up for.
"but not ideal for CAS" - Why?
"B-1? a strategic bomber?" - Your incredulity isn't an argument. The B-1 does perform close air support.
"F-15 Eagles?? an all-weather interceptor/dogfighter??" - You are aware of what a STRIKE EAGLE is, right? It's not an interceptor or dogfighter.
"Are you high?" - I ask the same. Did you get high the day you were reading wikipedia pages on airplanes? Because if you weren't high maybe you would have noticed that the things you don't believe in are real.
"Neither of those planes do CAS except in dire emergency!" - You might want to check the facts before continuously putting your foot in your mouth.
"You really need to research" - You really, really need to do your research. Again, it's publicly available information.
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@JoaoSoares-rs6ec "the program was for jet engine aircraft not propeler, drop th crap." - Again I will quote the A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY by David R. Jacques, PhD, LtCol USAF (Ret)
and Dennis D. Strouble, PhD.
"The A-X was to use an existing state-of-the-art engine in order to achieve an early Initial
Operational Capability (IOC). The number and type of engines was not specified by the RAD;
they would be determined by trade-space analysis considering performance, cost, survivability
and maintainability."
"On 19 April 1967, the F-X SPO forwarded a preliminary proposal22 to AFSC
headquarters. The AFRDQ A-X Proposal contained the Air Force (ASD) configuration studies
for two candidate vehicles. The first vehicle configuration used a single turbo-prop engine,
while the second vehicle configuration used two wing-mounted turbofan engines. Neither of
these configurations was considered optimal, but they were considered representative of aircraft
available in the 1970 time period."
"Each of four contractors awarded study contracts in May 1967 submitted design
approaches in support of the Concept Formulation Package. These design studies considered a
range of design choices in: 1) Airframe and Propulsion; 2) Avionics; 3) Armament; and 4)
Survivability Provisions. The performance regime specified for the A-X posed no stringent
requirements on the airframe, and conventional aluminum airframes were recommended by all
contractors. There was more variation in propulsion options, but all contractors recommended
either turboprop or turbofan engines, either in single or twin engine configurations. Engine
availability investigations by the Air Force determined there were no suitable turbofan engines
that could meet the required IOC, and even excursion investigations that removed the IOC
constraint favored the use of turboprops. The reason for this conclusion was that the available
thrust from the turboprop exceeded that of the turbofan at all speeds up to approximately 400
knots. The primary operating regime of the A-X existed below this value."
The program never demanded a jet engine, in fact the Air Force was hesitant to deploy jet engines because turboprops were more efficient at the low speeds required of the A-X aircraft. How can you ask me to drop the crap when I'm speaking the truth? Here's drawings of the turboprop proposals for the A-X program - http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UsRRCo2Zho4/TipD1H4QzOI/AAAAAAAAAt8/_X_m0YNhWd0/s1600/GD-AX-Turboprop.jpg General Dynamics http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tGZXeRfc5yQ/TipETlz12jI/AAAAAAAAAuE/YplQYPYsR7g/s1600/Northrop-AX-Turboprop.jpg Northrop
"armor doesn't have to protect every thing, just the essential" - if you destroy everything around the essential, the aircraft can't fly either because there will be no aircraft left.
"i'm done wasting time whit you" - No, you're done getting proven wrong by actual facts.
5
-
@terryboyer1342 What erroneous views? What facts and evidence? Video of gun runs? There's video of fighters doing gun runs on ground targets.
"You earlier opined the A-10 was "unsurvivable" on the modern battlefield due to it's slow speed and lack of stealth. And now you propose a turbo prop as a replacement?" - The US is not fighting in a "modern" battlefield, it's fighting in a COIN role. Turboprops can deploy closer to the action, have lots of loiter time, the Super Tucano is just 20 knots slower in terms of cruise speed so if it can operate from closer it gets there faster.
"Or that you could just "slap" a GAU 8 on them" - I'd suggest either paying attention, or not lying about what I said. Lying about things I said is one of the few things I cannot tolerate. Do you need 30mm to kill flesh and bone? There's miniguns, three barrel 50 caliber gatlings, if you want there's high caliber single barrel cannons. All of them will shred Toyotas and people. Do you want gun runs? Or do you want the BRRRT? Because I'd respect the honesty if this was about nostalgia.
"Relatively simple and low cost compared to most anything else" - It's low cost compared to high performance jets. A Super Tucano costs less than half per hour than the A-10 so if your issue is cost the AF was looking into it through the OA-X. But the BRRRT cultists won, and despite the extra cost the A-10 will continue flying. So don't tell me it's about cost because y'all are willing to pay more to keep the A-10 flying like a ship of Theseus.
"He stated the Army would take the A-10 in a heart beat if allowed to" - Again, this is a meme. In the memetic sense, not the internet joke sense.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/02/25/army-not-interested-in-taking-a10-warthogs-from-air-force.html
"The service's top civilian, Army Secretary John McHugh, rejected the idea of accepting hand-me-down A-10 Warthogs from the Air Force.
"No chance," he said during a breakfast meeting with reporters on Wednesday in Washington, D.C. "That's not even been a topic of casual conversation." "With our own aircraft fleet we're taking some pretty dramatic steps to reconfigure and become more affordable, and the A-10 mission is not something we considered. That's an Air Force mission as it should be and I'm sure the Air Force feels the same way," McHugh said."
"I believe he's somewhat more qualified than you to weigh in on this" - I don't question qualifications, but even qualified people make mistakes. Exactly how did this CWO 5 arrive at the conclusion that it would be both affordable and reasonable to take an ageing aircraft, and then either train Army aviators and maintainers in a "new" aircraft or take Air Force personnel and take them under the Army? Did he even make some napkin calculations? Did he consult anyone else? Or what he just spitballing with his friends like one would with a beer in hand?
"Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III has taken the brunt of the criticism, often directly. An A-10 driver during the latter days of the Cold War, he’s pushed back, arguing that CAS is a mission bigger than just the A-10. About 80 percent of all CAS sorties in Afghanistan since 2001 were flown by other aircraft, Welsh explained." - https://www.airforcemag.com/article/whats-next-for-cas/ the at the time Chief of Staff of the Air Force, a former A-10 pilot, said it's time to let go of the A-10. If we're comparing qualifications, wouldn't a former A-10 driver supersede said Chief Warrant Officer?
“I don't give a rat's ass what platform brings it in. I could care less if it’s a B-52, if it’s a B-1 bomber, if it’s an F-16, an F-15, an A-10. I don’t care if the thing was delivered by carrier pigeon. I want the enemy taken care of.” - https://youtu.be/eJzyN_yiTZ4?t=2837 General Mark A. Milley, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army
Maybe the Chief Warrant Officer should have consulted someone, because nobody with actual power to make the decision is in a hurry.
"With that I rest my case." - Let's review your case:
- Footage of gun run.
- Lying about what others said.
- Hypocritically dismissing cost after defending the A-10 on the basis of cost.
- Quoting an individual who puts his emotional wants over objective needs and whose opinion isn't shared by the people with actual power.
Just tell me you love the BRRT. Admit it. You say I'm triggered because of the BRRT, my only problem with the BRRT is it has become a cult but the cultists will not admit it. Just say you're nostalgic and not ready to let go. There's a lot of things I can't let go off. But at least I admit it. Don't come here and LIE about my posts so you can feel better. I'd prefer the truth.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@terryboyer1342 "10 actual actual search and rescue missions for downed aircraft/ missing people" - Respect where it is due. My father was search and rescue. I won't debate that.
"A B-1 was responsible for dropping a bomb on and killing 5 American soldiers on a night CAS mission in Afghanistan. The soldiers were using their IR strobes. The accident investigation revealed that while the A-10s Litening II pod could detect the strobes the B-1s Sniper pod cannot resulting in their being targeted and their deaths." - This is all I can link to about the subject:
https://www.defencetalk.com/moody-afb-a-10s-to-receive-new-sniper-pods-20411/ “It’s the Air Force’s pod of choice and is already in use in combat as well as in several active-duty units who are equipped with both the A-10Cs and other aircraft including the B-1B Lancer, F-15E (Strike Eagles) and F-16 (Fighting Falcons),” the colonel said. “Aside from the new improvements, it’s important to focus on the basic abilities that any targeting pod gives to the A-10C.”
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/01/11/b-1-bomber-crews-defend-sniper-pod-after-friendly-fire-incident.html ""Yes, the B-1 can't do it [see IR strobes] because of the pod, but anybody else who has that pod has the same [limiting factors] that we do," said Lt. Col. Dominic "Beaver" Ross, director of operations for the 337th Test and Evaluations Squadron.
"It wasn't B-1 specific. If it was an A-10, or an F-15 or F-16 in that situation, they would have had the same issue. I think it was just a misconception," he said."
"You seem to have a persistent dislike of the A-10 for some reason" - I have a persistent dislike for myth becoming fact, a dislike for the BRRRRT meme. We get it, the A-10 has a big gun. This meme, and I use the term in the original meaning of the word which is an idea that replicates and mutates like a gene, has taken over aviation discourse and invalidated any argument. Because BRRRT. You can't replace the BRRRT.
4
-
@JoaoSoares-rs6ec Before there were any prototypes, General Dynamics and Northrop submitted concept aircraft to the program, both turboprop.
"the purpose of the titanium bathtub is to protect the most important part of the plane the pilot" - So again, the rest of the aircraft is still vulnerable to 23mm fire.
"the position of the engines is very simple avoing the gases from the firing og the gau8 cannon" - Which didn't work, and so the engine ignition sparks while the cannon is fired to prevent flame out.
"as for the suposed quote" - It was not supposed, it's right there and you can read it.
"actyualy you stated it first" - I didn't.
"thye 23mm is a AAA caliber, not the 14.5, thats is why they would focuss on it, it makes no sense to focus on the 14.5" - "Survivability from ground fire was an essential characteristic for the A-X. Structural and system
design would need to provide inherent survivability, to include self sealing fuel tanks and, if
power flight controls were used, a manual backup system would be provided. The pilot and
critical flight systems would be protected from 14.5mm projectiles (common Soviet AntiAircraft shells)."
A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog)
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CASE STUDY - Air Force Center for Systems Engineering (AFIT/SY) - David R. Jacques, PhD, LtCol USAF (Ret)/Dennis D. Strouble, PhD
"damaged by AAA but not shot down" - Again, a couple of A-10s were downed by AAA, and others were damaged, limped back to base and are still buried in Saudi Arabia. Even if you come back to base it's still a loss. It's not invulnerable and it can be killed.
"the only ones shot down were whit missiles, i know that for a fact" - Your facts are wrong. Even pro-A-10 sources claims a few were shot down by AAA guns.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@JoaoSoares-rs6ec Let me explain again, but sloooooowly. When the A-X program started it was meant to be a turboprop aircraft. The A-10 didn't exist as a concept just yet. If it had been made to handle 23mm it would have barely taken off, let alone carry a payload or have loiter time. Aircraft design is a compromise. That's why the A-10, which is more powerful than the original A-X project envisioned and thus able to be more armored, still only has a titanium bathtub around the pilot and flight systems. Other armor panels, like the ones around the ammunition drum, are not required to stop 23mm shells, only to detonate them before they could set ammo on fire. So again, the point of the A-X program wasn't to make an aircraft invincible to ground fire, just resist it. And the design parameters were 14.5mm because that was perceived to be the big threat while 23mm was too costly to counter. The dual turbofans on the A-10 allow for more armor without sacrificing payload, but it's still not meant to be invulnerable to 23mm. It's only meant to save the pilot and flight controls from it. The rest of the plane can be destroyed by 23mm.
"No I'm not forgetting that USF didn't had a dedicated CAS aircraft" - I was QUOTING you, do you know what quotation marks mean?
"soldiers on the ground love the Tham thing" - Which is an emotional response, do you want to base your opinions on facts or feelings?
"any plane ment to replace it has been seen as a step back not forward" - According to whom? Bloggers and career politicians?
"do happen to know that all A10 lost, both of them were to IR missile not AAA" - I literally gave you the tail numbers of two A-10s shot down by AAA.
Let's see more http://www.rjlee.org/air/ds-aaloss/
Or here https://www.2951clss-gulfwar.com/loses.htm
OA-10A 77-0197 Hit by AAA small arms.
A-10A 78-0722 AAA ground fire 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets.
A-10A 79-0130 Hit by ground fire approx 60 miles North West of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets.
A-10A 80-0248 Hit by either 'optical AAA' ground fire or SAM 20, unconfirmed which it was, NM SW of Kuwait City, Kuwait.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Michael Longstaff "Enemy positions move dynamicly and extremely quickly in those situations so any GPS/INS guided weapons" - Yeah I'm chalking this one as a strawman argument, bub. Nobody suggested the use of GPS guided bombs.
"Low cloud ceilings or poor visibility and laser guided weapons like the GBU 12 are no use" - You say this like unguided bombs (put the thing on the thing, chunk chunk) or laser guided rockets that are fired from much lower altitudes don't exist.
"While airframes like the F-16, F/A-18, F-35 ect are amazing bjts of kit, a multirole platform will never eat a true purpose built one" - Why?
"The A-10s low speed" - That's a bad thing. Speed is life in the air.
"massive payload capacity" - The F-35 can carry 2,000 lbs more.
"loiter time" - Loiter time doesn't mean anything unless the enemy allows you to just fly without that meaning certain death.
"Its avionics are 100% focused on ground attacks" - You mean the avionics that were gutted and replaced by modern ones, that just operate like most modern fighter aircraft? It's got MFDs and targeting pods, big whoop.
"blow other fixed wings out of the water" - Why? You say things and expect us to believe them. Can you actually explain why the MFDs and targeting pods on the A-10 are better than on other aircraft?
"even reverting from hydrolic control of flight surfaces to a backup pully system at the flip of a switch" - The F-35 is built with independent hydraulic systems so that it can't get bled dry in the first plane unless you literally shoot off every control surface. And it's got even more body lift than previous designs. We already saw a F-15 land without a wing and stabilator, and a F-16 landed after losing half a wing. The F-35 has got even more body lift going for it.
"Not to mention the tub the pilot sits in is heavily armoured unlike multirole fighters." - This is a joke, right? Okay, the entire aircraft gets cut in half by missile, but the pilot has a titanium bathtub to protect him from 23mm. Great. Meanwhile a multirole fighter doesn't get hit in the first place. Hmmmm.
"A-10s have been known to be hit buy SAMs, destroying an engine and it has finished its mission before returning and landing safely." - In 1991 seven A-10s were lost to SAMs and AAA, with 13 more too battle damaged to repair. This lead the USAF to pull the A-10 from missions against the Iraqi Republican Guard because the losses were unacceptable. If you're known to get hit... that's bad. If you have to be sent into battle in a titanium bathtub because we know you're gonna die because of how poorly your airframe performs... you need to ask for a new plane.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@libertarian4ever66 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer "On 14 July 2007, the Associated Press reported on the growing USAF presence in Iraq, including reintroduction of B-1Bs as a close-at-hand platform to support Coalition ground forces.[134] Since 2008, B-1s have been used in Iraq and Afghanistan in an "armed overwatch" role, loitering for surveillance purposes while ready to deliver guided bombs in support of ground troops if contacted.[135][136]"
"In August 2012, the 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron returned from a six-month tour in Afghanistan. Its 9 B-1Bs flew 770 sorties, the most of any B-1B squadron on a single deployment. The squadron spent 9,500 hours airborne, keeping one of its bombers in the air at all times. They accounted for a quarter of all combat aircraft sorties over the country during that time and fulfilled an average of two to three air support requests per day.[145]"
"Beginning in 2014, the B-1 was used by the U.S. against the Islamic State (IS) in the Syrian Civil War.[148] From August 2014 to January 2015, the B-1 accounted for eight percent of USAF sorties during Operation Inherent Resolve.[149] The 9th Bomb Squadron was deployed to Qatar in July 2014 to support missions in Afghanistan, but when the air campaign against IS began on 8 August, the aircraft were employed in Iraq. During the Battle of Kobane in Syria, the squadron's B-1s dropped 660 bombs over 5 months in support of Kurdish forces defending the city, one-third of all bombs used during OIR during the period, killing some 1,000 ISIL fighters. The 9th Bomb Squadron's B-1s went "Winchester", dropping all weapons on board, 31 times during their deployment. They dropped over 2,000 JDAMs during the 6-month rotation.[150] B-1s from the 28th Bomb Wing flew 490 sorties where they dropped 3,800 munitions on 3,700 targets during a six-month deployment."
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/01/14/b-1b-lancers-evolving-mission-take-more-close-air-support.html ""Twenty-five years ago, if you would have said the B-1 was going to do CAS, you would have been laughed out of the room," said Lt. Col. Dominic "Beaver" Ross, director of operations for the 337th Test and Evaluations Squadron."
"Today, "the B-1 [has] dropped more weapons in CAS than any other platform. It's second to none," Ross said during an interview.
Military.com sat down with Global Strike Command officials during a trip to the base and took a ride in the B-1B over training ranges in New Mexico last month.
"Most ground commanders want a B-1 or an A-10 [Thunderbolt II]," Ross said of close mission support.
But, unlike the A-10 -- reigning champion in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria -- "we have the long loiter time," he said.
"We have the sensors. We have the speed, the shows of force. We are so [forward-leaning] in this community. We try to think of ways for the crews and the airplane to do things you would have never thought of doing with it," Ross said.
He continued, "If I'm talking to a guy on the ground and I have my sensor on him ... we can drop weapons seven miles away, or we can drop lower, drop them closer. We're not going to drop them as low as an A-10, but we are going to do shows of force where we're 500 feet overtop of their head.""
""Realize that all the platforms that drop these weapons [GBU-54s, GBU-31s] are seeing the exact same thing ," he said. "So a GBU-31 dropped off a B-1 is the same as a GBU-31 dropped off of an F-15, or an F-16, or an A-10. They all have launch acceptability regions, they all have air speeds and altitude restrictions, and they're all GPS-guided weapons."
Kilchrist added, "An A-10 can drop those things just as well as we can. To put in the perspective of, 'Oh, a B-1 is not a CAS platform' [argument], remember that CAS is that mission set. And because of the payload that we have, the speed, the gas, we can stay there for long periods of time. And just unleash.""
https://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/sen-mccain-b-1s-really-do-cas/
"Senator McCain stopped just short Tuesday of accusing the Air Force of walking away from the Close Air Support (CAS) mission if the service retires the A-10 Warthog fleet. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh and Secretary Deborah Lee James told the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing where McCain raised the issue that many other aircraft fill the CAS role, including the B-1B bomber.
McCain clearly did not buy it: “You’re throwing in the B-1 bomber as a close air support weapon to replace the A-10. This is the reason why there is … such incredible skepticism here in the Congress.” The senator apparently didn’t know that the B-1 has been a CAS weapon since 2001. The B-52 has flown CAS missions since 1967. Joint Publication 3-09.3 defines Close Air Support (CAS) as “air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, and which requires detailed integration of each air mission with fire and movement of these forces.” So, by definition, CAS is a joint mission and not the purview of any single service or platform."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJzyN_yiTZ4 "I don't give a rat's ass what platform brings it in. I could care less if it's a B-52, if it's a B-1 bomber, if it's an F-16..."
No offense gramps, but it's not the 80s anymore.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Michael Longstaff If modern equipment is better then how was my point missed?
The A-10 was designed to escort Army helicopters and provide CAS in an age where pilots' awareness of what was happening on the ground was extremely poor. In a Vietnam setting. It's extremely capable in the extremely narrow application it was designed for.
Modern battles happen on the modern world. Houthis have shot down jet aircraft. If you expect that new insurgent threats will not be gifted capable equipment by hostile nations, or that a new near-peer conflict won't happen, then you're stuck in the "fighting the last war" attitude that always reared its ugly head. Everyone's gearing up for a new war, the Marines are restructuring themselves to expect an island hopping campaign rather than being Army 2 like they have been during the GWOT and the remaining services are focusing on dealing with cruise missiles and the hypersonic threat.
"You cant always expect a CAS flight to be sat waiting for your call put in the air just for you" - You can, when you don't need specific airplane to provide it. If your needs can be met from almost every plane in inventory you'll have the true benefit of the multirole which is round the clock availability.
"5 to 10 minutes of support before hes off station." - So you got 5 to 10 minutes of death from above and that didn't do the trick?
"In Afghanistan, the taliban where terrified of the A10" - I'd rather have the effective weapon rather than the psychological weapon. I don't want someone terrified, I want someone dead. If I were an insurgent I'd love the fact that I could get scared and run away, so I can survive. Then two weeks later you'll have to deal with me again. And if I die then, shit at least I bled thousands of American taxpayer dollars with my worthless life like Bin Laden intended.
"I honestly belive that if you ask anybody who has been in a situation where you feel the ground under your feet shake and feel the impact of each round" - That's an emotional argument. That's the entire problem, emotion overcomes logic. If other aircraft were able to put on a show they'd be as loved as the A-10, but oh no the only thing they can do is kill stuff you need dead. That's a dealbreaker, somehow.
"pilots love it too" - That's not an argument, if you have the chance of flying you'll love whatever you can strap yourself into that isn't a death trap. Every pilot loves his machine. If he doesn't, you have a huge liability.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
keith moore "titanium rain thrust don't mean shit in a turning fight!!" - that's not how it works. All planes are subject to lift, gravity, thrust and drag. When you turn, you use lift to pull your airplane into the turn at the cost of drag. If you have no thrust, you bleed speed and drop like a rock. If you have thrust, you can continue turning. Saying that thrust doesn't mean anything in a turning fight is completely asinine because otherwise we could be using gliders as dogfighters.
"and F 5 regularly beat F4's at red flag!!" - and the F-35 shreds F-16s and F-15s at Red Flag and yet you critique it. I'm not saying the F-5 doesn't have its advantages, but you have to consider the historical context. The F-4 did fight a dissimilar enemy in the MiG 17, 19, 21 series, but TOPGUN instructed pilots knew how to use thrust to bring the fight to the vertical (you can tire yourself turning in circles, it doesn't do anything versus an enemy diving on you) or even take advantage of turn rate. Even though MiGs had a lower turn radius the F-4 pilot could simply ease on the stick and use the turn rate to keep up. Because Soviet equipped fighters had worse G-suits than Western fighters the F-4 pilot could simply pull comfortable 3-4 Gs while the MiG pilot pulled heavy Gs and quickly fatigued himself trying to turn.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Planesrifter "How many do I think could have continued on with upgraded systems and advancements and still had a viable place?" - You don't understand. You constantly load and unload metal or composites, fatigue starts to set in. You fly too many hours, things break apart mid air. Look at Japan Airlines Flight 123. An incorrect repair on the rear pressure bulkhead created a structure that after calculation, was found to have lasted 10,000 pressurization cycles. On its 12,318th flight after incorrect repair, the stress crack ruptured, breaking hydraulic fluid lines and ejecting the vertical stabilizer. 520 people died, only 4 survived.
You can't simply upgrade - planes will break apart in flight if they're not retired. Old F-16s go to the boneyard. Old F-15s go to the boneyard. It's easier to buy a new than just rebuild entire sections.
"My primary point is that due to the A-10's unique design elements to incorporate a gun like it does, it would be an existing airframe with a notable compatibility for testing airborne railgun tech" - But why? The mass of the gun and batteries would be so high it probably wouldn't even take off.
"I'm sure you know that the power burst for firing a railgun comes from a capacitor array discharge. This array simply takes time to recharge, and could be pre-charged for the first shot to be ready before takeoff, with external generators, perhaps mounted on hard points" - Huhhhh. So we're carrying extra fuel for these generators, huh? The A-10 engines are notorious for being underpowered, in Afghanistan the altitude limits the takeoff weight. And if you mount bigger engines, it'll guzzle more fuel.
"Airborne versions may only have a shot ready every minute" - We have missiles and rockets that can fire as fast as you can change targets on the MFD screen.
"But what if you're not IN a battlefield, but BVR (Is that the term? I forget. Beyond visual range?) and lining up a shot without hostiles knowing you're there? Yes I know missiles and (some) guided bombs can engage from those distances too, but the railgun would be SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper per shot, and likely harder to trace the origin of" - Who cares if it's cheaper? A a million dollar stealth glide bomb destroying several dozens of millions of dollars worth of equipment and killing the trained crews that operate it is extremely cheap. No need to pinch pennies by using impractical weapons in impractical aircraft doing impractical roles. With the projected range of naval railguns, they might as well just fire directly from sea and the payload dives on target at Mach 5. No need to load the gun on an airplane.
"desire to see the A-10 improved and revamped to better fulfill its role" - It's role barely exists anymore. It's not being used for the original role, it's not being used for the secondary role picked for it, it's doing COIN. No need for a railgun to do COIN.
1
-
@Planesrifter "I meant new production models" - Completely impractical.
"Re-producing an existing product would only require retooling costs, not the millions or billions of RnD costs for an entirely new design and airframe" - No.... The world has changed. First of all, you're not going to be making the old airframe. You need to use modern processes and materials. Remaking old designs is often a complete waste of money because you need to remake things the way they were done decades ago, and we do a lot of things differently. You will have to RnD a entirely new airframe and plan an entire production line. We can't hit a stop button on a clock and keep the old machines and old machinists and welders.
"And in comparison to missiles, tanks are surprisingly cheap. Guided bombs can (emphasis on can) cost upwards of 10x that of a modern tank." - What? A Maverick missile's supposed unit cost is 110k. The unit cost of a T-72 is two million.
"Yes but how many missiles and bombs do they carry? And what are the mobility limitations of them?" - An A-10 can comfortably carry 4x Mavericks and several pods of rockets. The guided rocket conversion kits can be fitted on the 19-shot pods. Mobility limitations? Less than batteries and generators.
"What if the entire airframe is ripped apart by the first shot due to an unforeseen caveat, and you spent billions on the new aircraft?" - Sounds like someone not only skipped the engineering phase that would predict at which point things start to rip apart, and then skipped the static ground tests that would show anything that the math and physics wouldn't by ripping apart a carbon fiber test bed shaped like a section of the fuselage of the airplane, rather than the actual airplane. You're the one who wants to spit out metal out of an aircraft at Mach Jesus and now you're worried about things ripping apart?
"Mountainous regions would block almost all naval rounds unless dropped straight down" - I'm sure there's a problem here. The whole point of naval-fired rounds is firing at an arc. If you thought the rail gun was a direct fire weapon primarily, here's the scoop - one of the payload options for the railgun is theorized to be a shell filled with tungsten cubes. The shell self-separates before impact and unleashes thousands of high velocity projectiles with very high density that can destroy aircraft not stored in concrete bunkers and may even penetrate through the tops of tanks.
"Not to mention the flight time still exists" - The projectile will literally arrive before a plane can take off on short notice.
"a LOT of atmosphere in the way, and ballistic coeffiecients exist for a reason." - Yeah. That's why the shot is fired upwards to fly the most time in thinner atmosphere, and then drops down because even though there's a ballistic coefficient you don't lose speed when you have gravity assisting you. You shoot upwards at Mach 7, the projectile falls down at Mach 5.
"An aircraft would not have to worry about terrain at all, and the target would be significantly closer, reducing the chance to miss." - I mean, aircraft do have to worry about terrain, considering that you don't want to crash into terrain, and that you can also use terrain to prevent being shot down. And terrain can obscure targets too, which is why lofting bombs is pretty cool. If you know a target's position you can pull the stick back, drop a bomb and it flies forward over the mountain and hits the target without you exposing yourself.
Being closer increases the chances of being shot down, and a rail gun shot would require pointing the aircraft at the target and flying in a straight path. The lower chance to miss only happens when you greatly increase your chances of becoming a sitting duck.
"I'm studying mechanical engineering with a focus in ballistics and weaponry" - A word to the wise here, focus on manufacturing. If you think half a century old manufacturing can be reactivated with the snap of a finger you're being too optimistic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@L3gionMusic "Guerrilla tactics are Taliban tactics you spack." - Literally what? You might want to re-read my comment because you're replying to a comment I didn't make. I do find it funny you call them Taliban tactics when the Taliban are not even close to be the most well known users of guerrilla tactics.
"Please also learn about the continent called Europe." - I am European.
"Do you really believe that the Empire wouldn't have wiped out America if it wanted to?" - I'd suggest you take a good look at a map of the United States.
" We later repelled your invasion and Canada, marched into your capitol and burned the White House down pal. Maybe you weren't aware of that." - to be honest any real American should want the White House burned down but that's beside the point. I just find it weird that you're flexing about a meaningless symbolic gesture when the fact is that the British could not control the US. You can burn a building down. But that amounts to nothing, it's an act of hooliganism. It's a child throwing his toys in the fireplace because he can't have his way.
"The cost of maintaining a presence in America was to much considering it was pretty much a desert in the middle of the pacific. Britain had a whole Empire to worry about." - Precisely the purpose of a guerrilla war. Hold the L.
"In fact, Britain was at war with, the US, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Vermont Republic, Kingdom of Mysore, the Oneida Tribe, the Tuscarora Tribe, the Watauga Association, the Catawba Tribe and the Maratha Empire all around the same time." - Oh boo hoo poor victim Britain.
"Much bigger things were happening around the world than they were America. Britain is an old country and was used to fighting wars as well as gaining and losing territory.
Grow up pal." - AHAHAHAHA says the guy who can't even read and replies aggressively to arguments that haven't been made, jerks off about destroying a building in a temper tantrum and then fucking off the country without being able to actually hold ground, claims other's countries aren't important because his huge empire was sooooo amazing. You lost it anyway. You're proud of the evil acts of an EMPIRE, you know, the bad guys that the good guys rebel against... It's like you can't be proud of anything you've done your whole life so you need these pathetic displays of patriotism to feel better about yourself. Because your racist ancestors thought they could own the world. You're telling others to grow up because you can't get over the fact that Britain lost the US and you need to pretend you weren't even interested. The explicit purpose of a guerrilla war is making war too costly for the oppressor. That's like Americans bragging about their kill count in Vietnam or saying "we were only there to contain Chinese expansion". They can beat off all they want to the dead Vietnamese and the thought that they could have razed North Vietnam to the ground but the fact was that the war became too costly for the US and they had to pull out when North Vietnam broke the Paris Accords. That's an L, babey. Just like the one Britain held.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1