A-10 Worthless POS

That was done purely for propaganda purposes. The first mission in Desert Storm was the Apache Hellfire strike that took out the radars that allowed the F-117's to pass over the frontier undetected. The most efficient strikes were probably those fired by the Missouri. The object is getting the most bang for your buck and the B2 is so bloody expensive that there are MANY other platforms that can do the same basic jobs for a fraction of the cost.

That's the point.

First of all, the F-117's did not "pass over the frontier undetected". I say this many times, but will say it yet again.

Stealth does not mean Invisible.

The only invisible jet in the world is flown by Wonder Woman, not the US Air Force. Invisible aircraft do not exist, can not exist, and will never exist. The idea of Stealth is to reduce the RADAR cross section, it is impossible to eliminate it.

The RADAR sites taken out were the main Iraqi Air Defense sites in the country. And it was not to prevent Baghdad from knowing they were coming, but to prevent their precise location from being known. While largely safe from ground fire, the Nighthawk is horribly vulnerable to other aircraft, having absolutely zero air to air capability.

So it was not to keep Iraq from knowing they were coming, it was to prevent Iraq from vectoring fighters in on them.

And it was also because the F-117s were not the only aircraft in the air at the time. There were multiple attacks and engagements that night between Iraq and Coalition forces. Including the one that killed Captain Scott Speicher.

In total, 2,775 sorties were flown on the first day of the air war. So of course the very first priority is to seriously degrade their capability to hinder coalition air dominance.

And I bet you can't even tell us why the Apache was the perfect weapon platform for that mission.
 
Jealous Air Force brass wanted a plane that could do what army helos could do. It NEVER did what it was suppose to do, cold war ended, and if it had tried it would have been pounded by Soviet AA fire. It was slow, vulenarable and not easily replaced. Junk, the only ones that like it are people that fight battles in their dreams

Actually, that is so wrong it is hardly worth replying to.

The "Key West Agreement" is generally considered to be the divorce decree between the Army and the Army Air Corps. And in this and other agreements several very key requirements were placed upon the Air Force.

One of them was the requirement to provide for the Army a Close Air Support aircraft. And because of this, the Air Force was still flying the WWII era A1 Skyraider. But the plane in the last half of Vietnam was taking horrible losses, a total of 266 were shot down over Vietnam.

So because of this, the Air Force retired them and designed the A10 as a replacement. Nothing to do with "jealousy" at all, but it was a mandate that they provide such aircraft.

full-11236-7023-pic_013.png


As for "survivability", we have had some A10s return to base with some pretty horrific battle damage. Maybe you should spend more time researching and less time making things up.

Didn't at least one come back from a mission to Kuwait having gained about three dozen 57mm hits and having lost an entire engine?
 
Didn't at least one come back from a mission to Kuwait having gained about three dozen 57mm hits and having lost an entire engine?

5888543266_a61c4cbe14_b.jpg


campbell-a-10-damage.jpg


We have had warthogs return with so much battle damage and land safely that it amazes the groundcrew that they were even able to continue flying. This aircraft is designed to take a tremendous amount of damage, and continue to fly.

And there is no way any other aircraft in the inventory could do what the A-10 did in this engagement.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDispl...ts-save-60-soldiers-during-convoy-ambush.aspx
 
Why is it that liberals who like to whine about American troops being slaughtered are so against the airplane that is world's best at minimizing those American deaths?

Gee, do they hate Americans THAT much?
 
Why is it that liberals who like to whine about American troops being slaughtered are so against the airplane that is world's best at minimizing those American deaths?

Gee, do they hate Americans THAT much?

To be fair, it is not all Liberals. Nor is it even all Leftists.

I have seen quite a few of the Far-Right Loosertarian ilk that share the same general beliefs.
 
Yes, I misspoke. The B-52 is currently the only one that can launch the ALCM (the nuclear one). The B1 has the ability but they haven't cleared it to do so yet. Yes the B2 can drop lots of bombs. Just not as many as the B1 or B-52 for that matter. I was referring to the nuclear option where the B-52 still reigns supreme thanks to the ALCM. It can hit multiple targets with nukes that the B1 and B2 can't.
So the first argument in your opinion that the B-2 is "worthless" is based on whether it can carry a standoff nuclear weapons?

Come on dude, that is a serious reach.

Either way you are again incorrect, the B-2 was designed to hit multiple targets with nuclear weapons.







No, it is worthless because I can have 7 B-1's for the price of one B-2. That means that no matter what is happening I can be assured of having at least FOUR B-1's available in the event of need. The B-2 is not able to fly in certain weather conditions such as rain due to its stealth technology, the operating cost is double that of the B-1 (some estimates are triple) serviceability is low.

The vast majority of the targets it will be used against have no ability to hit it period much less with a radar guided missile. Those countries that DO have a capability to hit it can be neutralized by the EA-18 Growler so allowing conventional aircraft to strike targets that would otherwise be tasked to the B-2.

Put another way, for the cost of one B-2 I can have an entire AIRFORCE of A-10's! or roughly 200 of them! So, you can hit 50 or so targets and I can hit roughly 2000. In a game of numbers the B-2 loses every single time.
 
That was done purely for propaganda purposes. The first mission in Desert Storm was the Apache Hellfire strike that took out the radars that allowed the F-117's to pass over the frontier undetected.
That's the point.
No, it was done because the B-2 was the best bomber for the mission. The Apache/F-117 operations you were talking about were in Gulf War I in 1991, B-2 were first to hit in Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

But since you bring up the F-117, why would they use those instead of F-16/F-15/F-18 that carry larger payload? Think about that, and how it relates to your claims the B-2 is worthless because of payload comparisons to B-1s.

The object is getting the most bang for your buck
Actually no, the object is to accomplish a mission without loss of pilot or equipment and the cost of the B-2 doesn't make it worthless.





In certain situations the stealthy aircraft is a very good thing. The F-22 is a brilliant airframe. It can sneak up on an enemy and shoot him down. The F-117 was adept at penetrating into a hot airspace to hit a single high value target.... very useful. I like that. It was expensive but it did that specific job very well.

The uses for the B-2 are so limited that it truly IS a useless aircraft. There is no job that it can do that can't be done by others at a fraction of the cost.
 
The B-2 comes to mind. At 2 billion a pop you can have that (which can be brought down by a bird strike) or you can have a fully equipped and manned Ohio Class sub.

Uhhh, to bad they are less then half that much though, only around $700 million.

Plus the Ohio class is actually a 1970's era boat. Estimates of a replacement are actually at around $6 billion each.

SSBN-X Future Follow-on Submarine

Nice fail though, nice fail.

Currently only the B-52 carries the ALCM, the B-2 may get one as the powers that be dream up yet another high cost project to squander money on.

And once again, you fail to grasp what it actually is you are talking about.

Why on earth would a Stealth Bomber even need an ALCM (Air-Launched Cruise Missile). The very idea of such a weapon was to increase the survivability of our bombers by allowing them to have a "shoot and scoot" capability. Move in close to the target, fire the missile and run away. This way their survivability goes way up by not having to actually enter enemy airspace.

Something the Stealth achieves through a different technique.

And think about it. A stealth aircraft works by reducing RADAR and heat signatures. Cruise missiles are not stealthy, and the bomber might as well hang out a giant sign in flashing neon screaming "HEY, HERE I AM! AND I JUST SHOT SOMETHING AT YOU!"

Oh, and finally, we do not use "standard cruise missiles" on our B-1 bombers. The US air launched cruise missile, the AGM-86 is to long to fit in a B-1. They can only be launched from the B-52.

Know your weapons, know your weapons. I find it really rather funny that you keep going on and on about ALCMs from a B-1, while the only ALCM they can even carry is the relatively new AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile), which is non-nuclear, and intended to take out air defense, air bases and C&C sites.

Oh, and has only been out for 5 years.

Research, do some. Weapons you want to talk about, know them.

Simply making things up as you go along is the most sure way to get busted by us who actually know what we are talking about, and know how to do research.






Because with a ALCM you can launch 12 missiles and hit 12 different targets PLUS the primary that the bomber hits. That's why. In a nuclear war you get one pass. Better make it the most devastating you possibly can.
 
That was done purely for propaganda purposes. The first mission in Desert Storm was the Apache Hellfire strike that took out the radars that allowed the F-117's to pass over the frontier undetected. The most efficient strikes were probably those fired by the Missouri. The object is getting the most bang for your buck and the B2 is so bloody expensive that there are MANY other platforms that can do the same basic jobs for a fraction of the cost.

That's the point.

First of all, the F-117's did not "pass over the frontier undetected". I say this many times, but will say it yet again.

Stealth does not mean Invisible.

The only invisible jet in the world is flown by Wonder Woman, not the US Air Force. Invisible aircraft do not exist, can not exist, and will never exist. The idea of Stealth is to reduce the RADAR cross section, it is impossible to eliminate it.

The RADAR sites taken out were the main Iraqi Air Defense sites in the country. And it was not to prevent Baghdad from knowing they were coming, but to prevent their precise location from being known. While largely safe from ground fire, the Nighthawk is horribly vulnerable to other aircraft, having absolutely zero air to air capability.

So it was not to keep Iraq from knowing they were coming, it was to prevent Iraq from vectoring fighters in on them.

And it was also because the F-117s were not the only aircraft in the air at the time. There were multiple attacks and engagements that night between Iraq and Coalition forces. Including the one that killed Captain Scott Speicher.

In total, 2,775 sorties were flown on the first day of the air war. So of course the very first priority is to seriously degrade their capability to hinder coalition air dominance.

And I bet you can't even tell us why the Apache was the perfect weapon platform for that mission.






Yes, I know that. I'm being very general due to time constraints. This is fun BTW! I haven't had a meaningful discussion on these matters for a long time and yes I am not exactly current, but I will catch up fast!
 
Because with a ALCM you can launch 12 missiles and hit 12 different targets PLUS the primary that the bomber hits. That's why. In a nuclear war you get one pass. Better make it the most devastating you possibly can.

And you completely ignore the fact that nuclear cruise missiles can't fit in the B-1.

Yes, I know that. I'm being very general due to time constraints. This is fun BTW! I haven't had a meaningful discussion on these matters for a long time and yes I am not exactly current, but I will catch up fast!

The thing is though, I am current. And in many ways we are dealing with what I did in the Army from 2007-2012, Air Defense.
 
Because with a ALCM you can launch 12 missiles and hit 12 different targets PLUS the primary that the bomber hits. That's why. In a nuclear war you get one pass. Better make it the most devastating you possibly can.

And you completely ignore the fact that nuclear cruise missiles can't fit in the B-1.

Yes, I know that. I'm being very general due to time constraints. This is fun BTW! I haven't had a meaningful discussion on these matters for a long time and yes I am not exactly current, but I will catch up fast!

The thing is though, I am current. And in many ways we are dealing with what I did in the Army from 2007-2012, Air Defense.




Ok. Tell me who out in the world can bring down a B-1.
 
Ok. Tell me who out in the world can bring down a B-1.

Damned near anybody. It is not a magical aircraft for goodness sakes! The militaries of a good many nations can take them down, Russia, China, most of Europe, Taiwan, England, France, Germany, Israel, even Japan could easily take one out.

This is why we try to only use them away from enemy forces that are a threat, or once air defenses have been taken out (they were not used in Iraq until Iraq's surface to air and air to air assets had largely been destroyed).

You seem to be seriously underestimating the capabilities of other nations around the world.

Hell, have you forgotten that Serbian forces shot down an F-117 with what is essentially a 40 year old missile system in 1999?

Nothing in our current military inventory is safe from harm. The closest I can think of out of all of our hardware in the last 25 years that was largely impossible to destroy were our Battleships. And the last of those was retired over 20 years ago.
 
Ok. Tell me who out in the world can bring down a B-1.

Damned near anybody. It is not a magical aircraft for goodness sakes! The militaries of a good many nations can take them down, Russia, China, most of Europe, Taiwan, England, France, Germany, Israel, even Japan could easily take one out.

This is why we try to only use them away from enemy forces that are a threat, or once air defenses have been taken out (they were not used in Iraq until Iraq's surface to air and air to air assets had largely been destroyed).

You seem to be seriously underestimating the capabilities of other nations around the world.

Hell, have you forgotten that Serbian forces shot down an F-117 with what is essentially a 40 year old missile system in 1999?

Nothing in our current military inventory is safe from harm. The closest I can think of out of all of our hardware in the last 25 years that was largely impossible to destroy were our Battleships. And the last of those was retired over 20 years ago.







:lol::lol::lol: I see a lot of Patriot users there! France is still fielding the Crotale and Mistral IIRC and there is virtually no way they could intercept a B-1. The Germans are still using the Roland so that's not a worry, the new LFKNG (I believe is what it is called) will probably give them the capability but currently they haven't a prayer either.

The Swedes have the RBS 70 which is a MANPADS so unless the B-1 is coming in for a landing can just flat out run it.

The Brits have the Rapier which was excellent in its day but is now quite dated. Same goes for the Blowpipe (though It CAN bring down the B-2). The RN though has some excellent SAMS, the Seawolf, if the B-1 is low, will take it out no question; and the Sea Dart has a chance at mid altitude. High altitude though and they are safe.
 
:lol::lol::lol: I see a lot of Patriot users there! France is still fielding the Crotale and Mistral IIRC and there is virtually no way they could intercept a B-1. The Germans are still using the Roland so that's not a worry, the new LFKNG (I believe is what it is called) will probably give them the capability but currently they haven't a prayer either.

Uhhh, Germany uses the PATRIOT also. And it is capable of engaging a B-1.

And what on earth makes you think I am talking about surface to air missiles? These are static emplacements, largely intended to defend fixed assets. Not go bounding about a country to engage incoming attacks.

Shooting down bombers like this is the job of Air Intercept and Air Superiority fighters.

The MiG-31, the Su-27, the F-15, the Tornado, the J-8, the Typhoon, the Su-35, the J-11, there are literally dozens of aircraft that would pose a serious threat to the B-1.

Not to mention the surface to air capability of any naval assets they might have to fly over.

You really need to think with a broader mind, and not get such a case of tunnel vision my friend.
 
:lol::lol::lol: I see a lot of Patriot users there! France is still fielding the Crotale and Mistral IIRC and there is virtually no way they could intercept a B-1. The Germans are still using the Roland so that's not a worry, the new LFKNG (I believe is what it is called) will probably give them the capability but currently they haven't a prayer either.

Uhhh, Germany uses the PATRIOT also. And it is capable of engaging a B-1.

And what on earth makes you think I am talking about surface to air missiles? These are static emplacements, largely intended to defend fixed assets. Not go bounding about a country to engage incoming attacks.

Shooting down bombers like this is the job of Air Intercept and Air Superiority fighters.

The MiG-31, the Su-27, the F-15, the Tornado, the J-8, the Typhoon, the Su-35, the J-11, there are literally dozens of aircraft that would pose a serious threat to the B-1.

Not to mention the surface to air capability of any naval assets they might have to fly over.

You really need to think with a broader mind, and not get such a case of tunnel vision my friend.





I DID mention the Patriot did I not? I then continued on with their indigenous weapons systems. I then did also mention the naval issues and yes, the air superiority fighters out there are the real threat. There is no doubt about that. That's why the F-22 is supposed to take them out first. That is after all its job.

And yes, in some ways I DO have tunnel vision. I like things that WORK. The B-2 can't fly when it rains. That's kind of a major hindrance don't you think? The aircraft is SO expensive that the brass will not commit it to a serious threat arena in the first place so once again its usefulness is gone.
 
Why is it that liberals who like to whine about American troops being slaughtered are so against the airplane that is world's best at minimizing those American deaths?

Gee, do they hate Americans THAT much?
This is the military forum. Aren't there enough political partisan retard forums for you to go spin everything into an attack an opposing ideology? Go play.
 
No, it is worthless because I can have 7 B-1's for the price of one B-2. That means that no matter what is happening I can be assured of having at least FOUR B-1's available in the event of need. The B-2 is not able to fly in certain weather conditions such as rain due to its stealth technology, the operating cost is double that of the B-1 (some estimates are triple) serviceability is low.
We have B-2s. We have B-1s. So again your point about initial cost is completely irrelevant in whether the plane is worthless, and the bullshit about it not being able to fly in the rain is a myth dispelled in the 90s.


The vast majority of the targets it will be used against have no ability to hit it period much less with a radar guided missile. Those countries that DO have a capability to hit it can be neutralized by the EA-18 Growler so allowing conventional aircraft to strike targets that would otherwise be tasked to the B-2.
They were the first over Baghdad because lots of radar guided missiles, they were used in Kosovo for certain missions (like F-117) because of radar guided missiles. They can take off from Missouri and hit any target in the world, which isn't something you can guarantee SEAD support on.

Put another way, for the cost of one B-2 I can have an entire AIRFORCE of A-10's! or roughly 200 of them! So, you can hit 50 or so targets and I can hit roughly 2000. In a game of numbers the B-2 loses every single time.
For 200th time, we have B-2s. You can't trade them in, we are discussing whether they are worthless which initial cost has no bearing.
 
In certain situations the stealthy aircraft is a very good thing. The F-22 is a brilliant airframe. It can sneak up on an enemy and shoot him down. The F-117 was adept at penetrating into a hot airspace to hit a single high value target.... very useful. I like that. It was expensive but it did that specific job very well.

The uses for the B-2 are so limited that it truly IS a useless aircraft. There is no job that it can do that can't be done by others at a fraction of the cost.
So you are now clutching to the argument that there are certain missions a F-117 was useful for because of stealth (bombing) since other non-stealthy planes like F-16 couldn't do, but there are no missions the B-2 can do (bombing in defended airspace) since other non-stealthy planes like B-1 and B-52 can.

That makes no sense. Either there are strike missions where a stealthy plane is best, or there aren't.
 
Because with a ALCM you can launch 12 missiles and hit 12 different targets PLUS the primary that the bomber hits. That's why. In a nuclear war you get one pass. Better make it the most devastating you possibly can.
B-2 is designed to hit multiple targets with nuclear weapons, the B-52 is designed to hit multiple targets with nuclear weapons. The "primary the bomber hits" isn't any different, B-52H has an internal rotary launcher carrying more ALCMs, same as on the wing hardpoints.

The B-52 cannot easily penetrate modern air defenses around high value targets so it relies on standoff range weapons, the B-2 can penetrate those defenses so it can use gravity weapons.

There are advantages to cruise missiles (obviously standoff range) but there are advantages to gravity weapons as well, one being payload. ALCM carries a W-80 warhead with a maximum yield of 150kt, but the US have gravity bombs in the inventory like B-82 with much higher yields up to 1.2mt.
 

Forum List

Back
Top