A-10 Worthless POS

[SteadyMercury]

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

The obvious answers, related to current world security threats, would be Russia and China. There are a host of other third world countries that have purchased advanced SAM systems as well.

I can't believe you think a large non-stealthy mach 1.2 bomber is impervious to modern air defense systems.

 

[SteadyMercury]

That's why the F-22 is supposed to take them out first. That is after all its job.

So now we're back to you saying there is nothing the B-2 can do that the B-1 cannot, but are again adding in requirements for additional aircraft for the B-1 mission like F-22 air superiority assets and SEAD growlers.

Those assets are not always available or capable of where we need to hit, when we need to hit it. Again, a B-2 can take off from continental US and hit a target anywhere in the world, you can't always assume there is a carrier within range of that same target or a base with F-22s.

You are essentially proven our argument, the B-2 can do things the B-1 cannot. You have to add in other planes created a far more complex, failure prone, and yes expensive (how much does a carrier or air base cost?) to make your B-1 scenario work.

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?

Myth, I can't believe anyone still believes this shit and you sometimes even see people claiming same about F-22. Birds and heavy weather are more of a maintenance issue for B-2 than other planes, but neither prevents it from flying or going into combat.

 

[SteadyMercury]

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.

I was USSTRATCOM so was once pretty solid on most things related to US bombers, obviously moreso in strategic roles than tactical.

Not as current anymore but most of what we're talking about related to strategic roles of US bombers hasn't changed much. Biggest change since I was in is at that time we were undergoing transition from ALCM to ACM for the BUFFs, I would have guessed that by now we'd be all ACM for nuclear mission and most ALCMs converted to conventional version. No more ACM though, fell prey to reduction treaties and performance issues that weren't resolved by the time the ax had to pick a platform.

 

[SteadyMercury]

The new 30k lb bunker buster...

Massive Ordnance Penetrator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is intended that the bomb will be deployed on the B-2 bomber, and will be guided by the use of GPS. Northrop Grumman announced a $2.5-million stealth-bomber refit contract on 19 July 2007. Each of the U.S. Air Force's B-2s is to be able to carry two 14-ton MOPs

Only planned for the B-2. Why? Because what they'd hit with it will likely be a high value target well defended against air strikes, and the B-2 would be a better platform for that scenario.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Interesting =

Welcome - Defense One

While the Air Force is expected to soon issue a request for proposals for its long-range strike bomber, a July 2 Congressional Research Service report made public Tuesday suggests that the service has already developed the aircraft through its classified budget.

The CRS report, obtained and posted online by Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, said the projected Air Force budget for the Long Range Strike Bomber jumps more than tenfold, from $258.7 million in 2013 to $3.5 billion in 2019, indicating the program may already be headed for production.

“Aviation analysts and industry officials confirm CRS’s assessment that this funding stream resembles a production program more than a typical development profile. This may indicate that significant LRS-B development has already been completed, presumably in classified budgets,” the report said.

 

[HenryBHough]

The Warthog, with all its warts, cannot compare with the incredible failure that's called "F35". The wonderful crown in The Pentagon's Crown that was supposed to be shown off at the recent Farnborough Air Show - but failed to appear. Due to yet another disgrace.

 

[toastman]

The Warthog, with all its warts, cannot compare with the incredible failure that's called "F35". The wonderful crown in The Pentagon's Crown that was supposed to be shown off at the recent Farnborough Air Show - but failed to appear. Due to yet another disgrace.

The F-35 was supposed to replace the A-10.

BTW, what happened with the F-35 that it is deemed a failure, besides the cost?

 

[HenryBHough]

The F-35 started out as a good idea but then each of the services started making unique demands for specialization. Result was a "Swiss Army Knife" sort of airplane that might be able to do lots of things but NONE of them well.

The major impact came from the Marine Corps demand that it be made capable of vertical takeoff which added incredibly to weight and complexity, compromised the already limited stealth capability it once had.

Fuel consumption is outrageously high leading to short missions or frequent refueling requirements.

The Farnborough disgrace was occasioned by an unexplained engine fire that had grounded the few existing F-35s indefinitely:

F35 No-Show Lets Airbus Dominate Farnborough Airshow - Fortune

 

[Jarlaxle]

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?

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

No, I mean the engine was MISSING--as in, 57mm hits had actually TORN THE WHOLE DAMN THING OFF.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

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.

Upgrade the electronics in it...and I see no reason an SA-2 Guideline couldn't take down a Lancer. Mach 3.5, can touch 80,000', and the huge warhead means it doesn't NEED to hit.

 

[Sallow]

I worked for a guy who was a Marine Pilot and he flew an A10.

He freakin loved it.

 

[westwall]

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.

Yes, they are worthless. They cost more than any other aircraft to operate, are less reliable than most, can't fly in the rain, and are so expensive that the brass won't risk them in any meaningful war. They would not send them in to strike targets in Russia for instance because they would almost certainly get shot down.

As far as striking anywhere in the world, so can the B-52 and the B-1. Hell the F-15 Strike Eagle can too. It's only limit is the pilots endurance.

 

[westwall]

Interesting =

Welcome - Defense One

While the Air Force is expected to soon issue a request for proposals for its long-range strike bomber, a July 2 Congressional Research Service report made public Tuesday suggests that the service has already developed the aircraft through its classified budget.

The CRS report, obtained and posted online by Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, said the projected Air Force budget for the Long Range Strike Bomber jumps more than tenfold, from $258.7 million in 2013 to $3.5 billion in 2019, indicating the program may already be headed for production.

“Aviation analysts and industry officials confirm CRS’s assessment that this funding stream resembles a production program more than a typical development profile. This may indicate that significant LRS-B development has already been completed, presumably in classified budgets,” the report said.

What? The B-2 is ALREADY being replaced?

 

[westwall]

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.

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.

Upgrade the electronics in it...and I see no reason an SA-2 Guideline couldn't take down a Lancer. Mach 3.5, can touch 80,000', and the huge warhead means it doesn't NEED to hit.

That's true, but then that's all it would take to hit the B-2 too. I don't see a B-2 doing an overflight of Russia any time soon. Hell they flew them over South Korea..not North Korea. If they were so stealthy they could have done that and no one would have known.

They didn't.

As far as the MOP goes, they need to justify the existence of the B-2 so they will do whatever they can to support its supposed superiority.

 

[Mushroom]

The major impact came from the Marine Corps demand that it be made capable of vertical takeoff which added incredibly to weight and complexity, compromised the already limited stealth capability it once had.

But that is only 1 out of 3 models. And it has minimal impact on the other 2.

And it was not the Marines demanding it, it was more the other way around. The Marines were more then willing to develop an updated version of the Harrier, but they were forced to buy into the F-35 program.

However, to satisfy the needs of the Marines and replace both the F/A-18 and AV8B, they had to incorporate VSTOL capabilities.

They can always simply authorize the Corps to go ahead with a new updated Harrier, and kill the F-35B program as far as many are concerned.

 

[Mushroom]

I worked for a guy who was a Marine Pilot and he flew an A10.

He freakin loved it.

Sorry, bit of a contradiction there.

The A-10 is only flown by the Air Force.

Marines only fly F/A-18s and AV8Bs.

 

[westwall]

The major impact came from the Marine Corps demand that it be made capable of vertical takeoff which added incredibly to weight and complexity, compromised the already limited stealth capability it once had.

But that is only 1 out of 3 models. And it has minimal impact on the other 2.

And it was not the Marines demanding it, it was more the other way around. The Marines were more then willing to develop an updated version of the Harrier, but they were forced to buy into the F-35 program.

However, to satisfy the needs of the Marines and replace both the F/A-18 and AV8B, they had to incorporate VSTOL capabilities.

They can always simply authorize the Corps to go ahead with a new updated Harrier, and kill the F-35B program as far as many are concerned.

That is completely untrue. As I said before there are compromises that have been made to the basic airframe that penalize the performance of ALL models. It won't be a good interceptor because it's stealthiness has been compromised. It won't be a good naval air fighter because it's range is compromised and to think it can replace the A-10 or even the AV-8B is a crock.

 

[Mushroom]

What? The B-2 is ALREADY being replaced?

Yea, after all it is only 26 years old.

Here is a hint, there are always replacement programs underway.

And if there was not, then the government should be shot for failing to carry out it's duty.

That's true, but then that's all it would take to hit the B-2 too. I don't see a B-2 doing an overflight of Russia any time soon. Hell they flew them over South Korea..not North Korea. If they were so stealthy they could have done that and no one would have known.

They didn't.

As far as the MOP goes, they need to justify the existence of the B-2 so they will do whatever they can to support its supposed superiority.

Sorry, but that really makes no sense... We do not go around flying nuclear capable bombers over nations we are not engaged in hostilities with.

However, I am glad we have B2s prepared and capable of doing so if needed.

And the B-2 is needed. Hell, the F-117 is still needed. So are a great many things that the government has been taking away from the military over the last couple of decades. Simply because some beancounter thinks they have a better idea of what we need.

After all, if it saves money, what does it matter how many servicemembers die?

 

[SteadyMercury]

Fuel consumption is outrageously high leading to short missions or frequent refueling requirements.

F-35Bs combat radius is 450nm.

Compare that to AV8B (what it is replacing) combat radius of 300nm.

So basically you are complaining about short missions that are 50% improvement.

 

[SteadyMercury]

Yes, they are worthless. They cost more than any other aircraft to operate, are less reliable than most, can't fly in the rain, and are so expensive that the brass won't risk them in any meaningful war. They would not send them in to strike targets in Russia for instance because they would almost certainly get shot down.

Hey if you can't make a point with facts just make up some shit right?

1. B-2 can fly in the rain, that is a myth (pointed out numerous times), so you are making shit up.
2. B-2 was used against heavy air defense systems in both Kosovo and Baghdad, so you are making shit up.

As far as striking anywhere in the world, so can the B-52 and the B-1. Hell the F-15 Strike Eagle can too. It's only limit is the pilots endurance.

Ahh but you already talked about the additional aircraft needed to work with your B-1s and B-52s for SEAD and air superiority. So no, a B-1 can't strike anywhere in the world, it depends on how heavily defended the target is because you might need a carrier and/or a base with F-22s within range.