F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[Daryl Hunt]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

 

[westwall]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

The huge difference being the A-10 can survive in a high threat environment that the A-7 can't. The A-10's loiter time is also significantly greater.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles

TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.

In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.

----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq

In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.

The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.

.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....

I was briefed on your "So Called" limited war between Warsaw Pact and Nato in 1980. I will tell you this, the Soviets WOULD have used tactical nukes and could take out every Nato Air base in about 6 minutes with tactical nukes. The only birds from Nato in the skies would only be those that were already in the sky or those Alert Birds that got off in time. Even if they didn't, they would mount Mig-27 racks on the Mig-23s and take out every runway in 6 minutes conventionally. It all would be determined if the Soviets believe if the limited nukes would or would not lead to an all out Nuclear Exchange. I was involved in the 1980 Wargames in Europe in 1980. I was on the Soviet AF team. We used tactical Nukes and the East German Autobahns were our Runways. 6 minutes fro launch. The Mig-25s were flown mimicking bombers until the Alert Birds saw the real threat then the look down shoot down Mig-25s ended the ruse. The Nato Fighters get about halfway up and now can see the Mig-23s coming in and go "Holy Shit" and go after the real threat but it's too late.

Now, it's junk against junk and the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming amount of junk.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles

TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.

In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.

----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq

In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.

The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.

.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....

You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.

That's because he''s never been in one. All those cardboard pieces are human beings.

 

[AZrailwhale]

..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles

TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.

In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.

----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq

In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.

The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.

.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....

I was briefed on your "So Called" limited war between Warsaw Pact and Nato in 1980. I will tell you this, the Soviets WOULD have used tactical nukes and could take out every Nato Air base in about 6 minutes with tactical nukes. The only birds from Nato in the skies would only be those that were already in the sky or those Alert Birds that got off in time. Even if they didn't, they would mount Mig-27 racks on the Mig-23s and take out every runway in 6 minutes conventionally. It all would be determined if the Soviets believe if the limited nukes would or would not lead to an all out Nuclear Exchange. I was involved in the 1980 Wargames in Europe in 1980. I was on the Soviet AF team. We used tactical Nukes and the East German Autobahns were our Runways. 6 minutes fro launch. The Mig-25s were flown mimicking bombers until the Alert Birds saw the real threat then the look down shoot down Mig-25s ended the ruse. The Nato Fighters get about halfway up and now can see the Mig-23s coming in and go "Holy Shit" and go after the real threat but it's too late.

Now, it's junk against junk and the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming amount of junk.

There wouldn’t have been any birds in NATO’s skies thirty minutes after the Soviets detonated their tactical nukes. That’s how long it would have taken US strategic ballistic missiles to hit the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries. France’s Mirage IVs would hit Moscow on one way suicide missions shortly after that. The USA’s stayed position was to respond with strategic nukes to any use of WMD by an opponent. Gas, Germs or Nukes, we’d respond with massive Nuclear strikes on the USSR and Eastern Europe. The war would be over in a few hours with the few survivors in out of the way places trying to survive.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles

TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.

In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.

----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq

In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.

The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.

.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....

I was briefed on your "So Called" limited war between Warsaw Pact and Nato in 1980. I will tell you this, the Soviets WOULD have used tactical nukes and could take out every Nato Air base in about 6 minutes with tactical nukes. The only birds from Nato in the skies would only be those that were already in the sky or those Alert Birds that got off in time. Even if they didn't, they would mount Mig-27 racks on the Mig-23s and take out every runway in 6 minutes conventionally. It all would be determined if the Soviets believe if the limited nukes would or would not lead to an all out Nuclear Exchange. I was involved in the 1980 Wargames in Europe in 1980. I was on the Soviet AF team. We used tactical Nukes and the East German Autobahns were our Runways. 6 minutes fro launch. The Mig-25s were flown mimicking bombers until the Alert Birds saw the real threat then the look down shoot down Mig-25s ended the ruse. The Nato Fighters get about halfway up and now can see the Mig-23s coming in and go "Holy Shit" and go after the real threat but it's too late.

Now, it's junk against junk and the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming amount of junk.

There wouldn’t have been any birds in NATO’s skies thirty minutes after the Soviets detonated their tactical nukes. That’s how long it would have taken US strategic ballistic missiles to hit the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries. France’s Mirage IVs would hit Moscow on one way suicide missions shortly after that. The USA’s stayed position was to respond with strategic nukes to any use of WMD by an opponent. Gas, Germs or Nukes, we’d respond with massive Nuclear strikes on the USSR and Eastern Europe. The war would be over in a few hours with the few survivors in out of the way places trying to survive.

that was the conclusion reached years later. But the same scenario could have been done through conventional means with higher Warsaw Pact losses. But Warsaw Pact could afford the additional losses.

You leave out the fact that the Soviets would have also fired their own Strategic Nukes at the US and other parts of the Nato Countries as well with the launch of the nato Nukes.

 

[Dayton3]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

I got my birth on the Military War games because of an A-7 V F-15. The F-15 Drivers tried to learn a game called Airwars that we played weekly. I kept getting ground attacks with the A-7 or some other form of not so glorious bird like the Mig-21 in the game. All of us could not fly the brand new spanking F-15 or F-14. Our Pilots kept losing their butts to a bunch of enlisted. So the Wing King showed up (he was also a veteran of the game) and flew a F-15 and what did I get? You guess it, a ground attack loaded A-7. I had to go in, take out a ground installation and get home. I missed the ground installation and decided home was a very good idea. He was on me like stink on a skunk. I hit the deck, flew between trees, down river beds, between buildings and was still taking hits from his gun. But that Titanium Bathtub held up. Then we came to a bridge. I went under and he was forced to go over. I fired every 40mm grenade I had. He flew into them. Needless to say, scratch one F-15. Afterwards, he asked me what I was trying to do. I answered, "Just get home".

When you are flying an A-7 against a F-15 forget trying to turn and burn. The F-15 will just pick his speed up, go in and out of Mach+ to get separation and sooner or later, wait for a mistake from the A-7 jockey. Never fly the other guys game. In retaliation, he got me into the F-15 Base Simulator against him. I died many times from missiles, guns, ripping my wings off, smacking the ground and more. Airwars was a tactics trainer but the Simulator was a Flight Trainer where you could fly against the computer or another person but it didn't teach tactics. The Military War Games used Air Wars as the basis for their war game. So our Wing King sent his two best qualified people, a SSgt and a A1C. But remember, War games are Tactics more than real application.

 

[harmonica]

..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles

TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.

In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.

----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq

In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.

The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.

.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....

You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.

the truth is tiresome--hahahhahahahaha
....you people make the same mistake--thinking in board game mentality and not reality
----Israel was:
outnumbered in every category
had a very narrow front--understand that?
''surrounded'''!!!!
caught by surprise in 1973-had to mobilize
etc
and STILL beat the Arabs

 

[Daryl Hunt]

..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles

TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.

In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.

----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq

In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.

The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.

.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....

You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.

the truth is tiresome--hahahhahahahaha
....you people make the same mistake--thinking in board game mentality and not reality
----Israel was:
outnumbered in every category
had a very narrow front--understand that?
''surrounded'''!!!!
caught by surprise in 1973-had to mobilize
etc
and STILL beat the Arabs

They used superior tactics and planning. Simple as that. And Guts, lots of Guts. The same reason the US Military can win with what appears to be an inferior force. A lot of guts and a little insanity mixed in with superior tactics and planning. And how did they get that way? Some small group of planners used a board game to come up with those tactics and planning. The rest, the Participant brought with them.

War games are nothing more than giant board games. And if you don't play them, you get defeated. If you cheat during them you get defeated. Even when you get defeated in a Board Game, you can often times, learn from it and win in the real world. Never discount the Board Game. It's a necessary part of planning.

 

[harmonica]

..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles

TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.

In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.

----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq

In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.

The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.

.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....

You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.

the truth is tiresome--hahahhahahahaha
....you people make the same mistake--thinking in board game mentality and not reality
----Israel was:
outnumbered in every category
had a very narrow front--understand that?
''surrounded'''!!!!
caught by surprise in 1973-had to mobilize
etc
and STILL beat the Arabs

They used superior tactics and planning. Simple as that. And Guts, lots of Guts. The same reason the US Military can win with what appears to be an inferior force. A lot of guts and a little insanity mixed in with superior tactics and planning. And how did they get that way? Some small group of planners used a board game to come up with those tactics and planning. The rest, the Participant brought with them.

War games are nothing more than giant board games. And if you don't play them, you get defeated. If you cheat during them you get defeated. Even when you get defeated in a Board Game, you can often times, learn from it and win in the real world. Never discount the Board Game. It's a necessary part of planning.

no--board games like this

 

[Daryl Hunt]

..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles

TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.

In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.

----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq

In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.

The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.

.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....

You're right about most wars being restricted in some way.
But your claim that people treat wars like a board game is very tiresome.

the truth is tiresome--hahahhahahahaha
....you people make the same mistake--thinking in board game mentality and not reality
----Israel was:
outnumbered in every category
had a very narrow front--understand that?
''surrounded'''!!!!
caught by surprise in 1973-had to mobilize
etc
and STILL beat the Arabs

They used superior tactics and planning. Simple as that. And Guts, lots of Guts. The same reason the US Military can win with what appears to be an inferior force. A lot of guts and a little insanity mixed in with superior tactics and planning. And how did they get that way? Some small group of planners used a board game to come up with those tactics and planning. The rest, the Participant brought with them.

War games are nothing more than giant board games. And if you don't play them, you get defeated. If you cheat during them you get defeated. Even when you get defeated in a Board Game, you can often times, learn from it and win in the real world. Never discount the Board Game. It's a necessary part of planning.

no--board games like this
View attachment 409103

I am very familiar with that game. And it has a ton of historical action in it where you can change history by changing tactics. Certain actions MUST be taken due to hard core historic events but when you satisfy those, you can change a battle from a win to a loss through planning, strategy and, yes, just plain dumb luck. If you don't use some form of this type of board game, you are destined to lose the war. It's one thing to win or lose the battle but you have to put it all together to win the war. MOST great leaders are very familiar with this game.

 

[Silver Cat]

As of Mod 4, when a F-35 goes into an area, they load up tactical maps specific to that area. Like the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, it will use GPS when available. When GPS is unavailable, it uses the internal maps for targeting. There is nothing there to jam. It's all internal.

It is good to have a map in your computer (or hands). But you must understand were exactly you are, you must know your position. There is a limited number of tools for it - the pilots eyes, GPS, INS or radar (or, more specifically - CNI system). Do you have any idea, what is the meaning of the letter "N" in the acronyn "CNI"?
INS based on the relatively cheap fiber-optic gyroscopes gives an error near 1 mile per hour. Not much if you want to find a city or your airbase, but even ten minutes of the flight without correction - restricts the usage of all GPS-guided ordnance. There is no way to use GPS-guided bombs in the GPS-degraded environment. Just "choose another weapon". Do we have laser-guided nuclear bombs? No. How many laser-guided conventional bombs do we have?

And NO Radar needed. The targeting information can come from another AC, a Drone or a Sat either electronically or visually. You won't know the F-35s are there until your radar sites begin blowing up. And then you won't know from what vector.

May be, enemy won't detect "another AC, a drone or a sat", but what if he will?

Meanwhile, the Buff hasn't even launched yet or is many hundred miles away in a holding pattern. The F-22, B-2 and F-35 changed how air war and ground war is to be fought. It ain't the 20th century anymore.

CMs are good targets for Air Defense, too. Yes. So, if the B-52 (escorted by the "universal fighters" like F-35) can't attack countries with the specialised fighters and interceptors like Russia or China, we lost near 1/3 of our detterence potential.
It's year 2021 - 2025. China wants to retake Taiwan. They plan to start war by eliminating significant part of the US communication, navigation and recon sattelites. They have six battalions of S-400 and, say, seven destroyers type 055 with HQ-26 to protect their important targets, from, say two hundreds warheads.
Even if we start all-out war (and leave Russian unfettered), they lose less in China than can get in Taiwan.
Any suggestions about usage of F-35 in a big war? For one, they are too weak for a total war, and too expensive for a local one.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

As of Mod 4, when a F-35 goes into an area, they load up tactical maps specific to that area. Like the Tomahawk Cruise Missile, it will use GPS when available. When GPS is unavailable, it uses the internal maps for targeting. There is nothing there to jam. It's all internal.

It is good to have a map in your computer (or hands). But you must understand were exactly you are, you must know your position. There is a limited number of tools for it - the pilots eyes, GPS, INS or radar (or, more specifically - CNI system). Do you have any idea, what is the meaning of the letter "N" in the acronyn "CNI"?
INS based on the relatively cheap fiber-optic gyroscopes gives an error near 1 mile per hour. Not much if you want to find a city or your airbase, but even ten minutes of the flight without correction - restricts the usage of all GPS-guided ordnance. There is no way to use GPS-guided bombs in the GPS-degraded environment. Just "choose another weapon". Do we have laser-guided nuclear bombs? No. How many laser-guided conventional bombs do we have?

And NO Radar needed. The targeting information can come from another AC, a Drone or a Sat either electronically or visually. You won't know the F-35s are there until your radar sites begin blowing up. And then you won't know from what vector.

May be, enemy won't detect "another AC, a drone or a sat", but what if he will?

Meanwhile, the Buff hasn't even launched yet or is many hundred miles away in a holding pattern. The F-22, B-2 and F-35 changed how air war and ground war is to be fought. It ain't the 20th century anymore.

CMs are good targets for Air Defense, too. Yes. So, if the B-52 (escorted by the "universal fighters" like F-35) can't attack countries with the specialised fighters and interceptors like Russia or China, we lost near 1/3 of our detterence potential.
It's year 2021 - 2025. China wants to retake Taiwan. They plan to start war by eliminating significant part of the US communication, navigation and recon sattelites. They have six battalions of S-400 and, say, seven destroyers type 055 with HQ-26 to protect their important targets, from, say two hundreds warheads.
Even if we start all-out war (and leave Russian unfettered), they lose less in China than can get in Taiwan.
Any suggestions about usage of F-35 in a big war? For one, they are too weak for a total war, and too expensive for a local one.

The Marines have about 353 F-35Bs and 67 Cs now. They are flying the B off of attack carriers. The C can launch from the Attack Carrier and recover as well. And the Navy is currently adding the F-35C to the USS Carl Vincent. In the end, between the Navy and the Marines, the F-35B and C on carriers will outnumber the entire Chinese Aircraft Inventory including none combat Aircraft. The Chinese really can't invade Taiwan with ground forces without at least 200,000 or more losses without the aid of the US. Now, add the US Navy, Marines and Air Force and they don't stand a chance. China would have no choice but to do a full scale war with the US and Russia would not care for that. And India just might take advantage of that and help themselves to some disputed territories. And don't give me the crap about the DF-26 Missiles. They don't have a ghost of a chance to work.

 

[harmonica]

..a multi-role airplane cannot do the job as well as a single role airplane
1. you can't build a plane to be optimized for a certain role if you have to attach multi-role systems
2. undeniably a pilot cannot be trained as well for a certain role if he has to train for many roles

TRue but the cost of having so many different kinds of air frames is just cost prohibitive for the US, China, Russia and any Military of any size. Right now, the F-35A and B are the best all season Fighter made. You keep pushing the A-10 but in a fight with eitehr the Rissian or Chinese, it's just target practice.

In truth, ANY modern combat aircraft against a peer opponent is just "target practice". And its even worse for drones.

Ever read what the NATO loss rates for their tactical aircraft were estimated to be in an all out conventional war against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980s?

50%. With similar or even worse losses for the Warsaw Pact forces.

That's 50% in ONE WEEK of combat. In short, there would've been state of the art combat aircraft falling from the skies like confetti.

----peer opponent ......we saw what the Israelis did to Syria, etc and the US to Iraq, etc......I'm not too sure the Warsaw Pact was any better than Syria or Iraq

In raw numbers alone, the Warsaw Pact was vastly superior to Syria and Iraq.

The Warsaw Pact had such a numeric advantage, they could have taken continental Europe. By the end of hostilities, both sides would be using junk since all front line equipment would have been lost. No, the Warsaw pact still could not have taken the British Isles. And it would give time for the US to get the buildup of good stuff. But for a time, it would be the A-10 and A-7 against the Su-7 where the SU-7 vastly outnumbers the quantity of both the A-10 and A-7. The Mig-23 and 25s would be gone, the F-14 and F-15 would be lost until the resupply. By that time, there would be enough Mig-21s and new Mig-25s in enough quantity to offset the superior F-15. And there wouldn't be enough F-16s to really count yet. Oh, and the F-4 would still be a player but much fewer in numbers. And that is just Air Power.

On the ground, the superior numbers of the T-72 would far outweigh the M-60 which is a better tank. Yes, the T-72 ended up becoming a better tank for Russia and the US replaced the M-60 with the M-1 but there are still some countries using the upgraded M-60 Tank that is still superior to the upgraded T-72. In the end, there would have been a lot of wasteland to contend with, destroyed cities, lost crops, destroyed roads and bridges, etc..

The Winner? If you go by territory claimed, Warsaw Pact. If you go by just how back Europe goes to the Stone Age, there are no winners.

.....you make the same mistake a lot of people do --you thinks it's a board game
..end of hostilities?? what the Heck is the scenario?? !!!! the WP wants to overrun Europe?? why?
..at the end of the hostilities of WW2, the US had more aircraft in use and the Germans were using JETS/King Tigers--so they were not using '''''junk''''

...the other thing is most wars are not TOTAL wars, they are restricted .....

I was briefed on your "So Called" limited war between Warsaw Pact and Nato in 1980. I will tell you this, the Soviets WOULD have used tactical nukes and could take out every Nato Air base in about 6 minutes with tactical nukes. The only birds from Nato in the skies would only be those that were already in the sky or those Alert Birds that got off in time. Even if they didn't, they would mount Mig-27 racks on the Mig-23s and take out every runway in 6 minutes conventionally. It all would be determined if the Soviets believe if the limited nukes would or would not lead to an all out Nuclear Exchange. I was involved in the 1980 Wargames in Europe in 1980. I was on the Soviet AF team. We used tactical Nukes and the East German Autobahns were our Runways. 6 minutes fro launch. The Mig-25s were flown mimicking bombers until the Alert Birds saw the real threat then the look down shoot down Mig-25s ended the ruse. The Nato Fighters get about halfway up and now can see the Mig-23s coming in and go "Holy Shit" and go after the real threat but it's too late.

Now, it's junk against junk and the Warsaw Pact had an overwhelming amount of junk.

hahahhahahhah
.....nukes used---so the scenario is:
it doesn't MATTER how many planes the WP has---it's a nuke war!!!!!!!!!!

 

[The Original Tree]

Pentagon?s big budget F-35 fighter ?can?t turn, can?t climb, can?t run? | The Great Debate

Pentagons big budget F-35 fighter cant turn, cant climb, cant run

Is there a serious problem, or just the press hunting for a story?

Biden and Obama basically let China walk in the door and steal the blueprints to the F-35 and let Russia steal the designs to our Hypersonic missile.

The Chinese also were allowed to steal stealth technology for our submarines. And Bill Clinton gave away missile guidance technology to China to help with their "Space Program". That tech now sits in North Korean and Iranian Missiles. Globalists do what a Globalist will do to undermine America.

Never in America have two traitors like this given away so much to our enemies for so long.

This is why we had to rush Generation 6 Development.

 

[harmonica]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

In 1980, the F-15 Radar wasn't what it is today. It was easy to confuse it by ground clutter. And when that ground clutter gives the A-7 something to hide behind, you can't shoot through trees and granite. And the A-7 can fly in places the F-15 can't due to wing span. When you are dealing with on the deck, all of a sudden that climb rate doesn't mean a thing. And since you are strictly visual, that radar doesn't mean a thing either.

Here is a little hint on why the A-7 survived. The F-15s guns were tied into his radar in 1980. This was corrected shortly after. You defeated his radar or he lost his radar, he also lost his gun. It helps to be out of the Avionics Squadron. That means, if the A-7 Jockey is taking advantage of the terrain, you guns on your F-15 won't be operational on every pass. And the A-7 was designed to take hits from the Russian 23mm and 37mm AA Weapons. A few hits from a 20mm it can handle. Even a few hits from a 30mm it can handle. It's fuselage is a titanium Bathtub. That one engine is better protected than the 2 engines in the F-15.

On the ending, if you have ever seen either an A-1 or an A-7 do a ground attack with his forward firing weapons, you would understand. It's not something any Aircraft could survive. It was meant to knock out tanks. Or at least suppress them. And to completely defeat the F-15, the A-7 did not have to knock the F-15 out of the air. He just had to take out the Radar by damaging the Array or the Radar Boxes in the nose. A miss with 40mm Grenades means shrapnel will be hitting the F-15s nose rendering the Radar useless. He just lost his guns and missiles. Or a direct hit and he's toast and the Driver walks home at the very least. There is a reason that even the A-1E has mig kills to it's name. Where do you think I got the idea from? From a real life A-1E against 3 Migs where 2 Migs didn't survive. One flew into the side of a valley and the other flew directly in front of the Sandy and got hit by about 6 ground attacks worth or ordinance.

 

[westwall]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

In 1980, the F-15 Radar wasn't what it is today. It was easy to confuse it by ground clutter. And when that ground clutter gives the A-7 something to hide behind, you can't shoot through trees and granite. And the A-7 can fly in places the F-15 can't due to wing span. When you are dealing with on the deck, all of a sudden that climb rate doesn't mean a thing. And since you are strictly visual, that radar doesn't mean a thing either.

Here is a little hint on why the A-7 survived. The F-15s guns were tied into his radar in 1980. This was corrected shortly after. You defeated his radar or he lost his radar, he also lost his gun. It helps to be out of the Avionics Squadron. That means, if the A-7 Jockey is taking advantage of the terrain, you guns on your F-15 won't be operational on every pass. And the A-7 was designed to take hits from the Russian 23mm and 37mm AA Weapons. A few hits from a 20mm it can handle. Even a few hits from a 30mm it can handle. It's fuselage is a titanium Bathtub. That one engine is better protected than the 2 engines in the F-15.

On the ending, if you have ever seen either an A-1 or an A-7 do a ground attack with his forward firing weapons, you would understand. It's not something any Aircraft could survive. It was meant to knock out tanks. Or at least suppress them. And to completely defeat the F-15, the A-7 did not have to knock the F-15 out of the air. He just had to take out the Radar by damaging the Array or the Radar Boxes in the nose. A miss with 40mm Grenades means shrapnel will be hitting the F-15s nose rendering the Radar useless. He just lost his guns and missiles. Or a direct hit and he's toast and the Driver walks home at the very least. There is a reason that even the A-1E has mig kills to it's name. Where do you think I got the idea from? From a real life A-1E against 3 Migs where 2 Migs didn't survive. One flew into the side of a valley and the other flew directly in front of the Sandy and got hit by about 6 ground attacks worth or ordinance.

You are full of poo, dude. The A-7 ain't going to be sweeping in and out or rock formations like a fucking X Wing fighter from star wars.

The F-15 smokes the A-7 through the Grand Canyon which is as close as you are going to get to your fantasy star wars scenario.

And the F-15 radar was pretty damned good when they came online. General Strand, who commanded Holloman AFB and brought the F-15 into the inventory, and who was a good friend, told me how amazed they were with its ability to pick moving targets out of ground clutter.

Even way back then.

So, real world vs you and your enlisted man war game star wars horseshit.

BTW enlisted don't do the wargames.

Just a heads up for your next lie.

 

[Dayton3]

You also state that the Navy and Marines can't use the F-22. Why is that? They all used the F-4 Phantom and didn't seem to have a problem. It is no major issue to put a stinger on the F-22, this is purely a case of inter service rivalry.

I don't think the F-22 as its designed can be easily modifiable for carrier operations. And it certainly can't be modified for STO/VL operations like the Harrier. Regarding the carrier operations it would basically take an entirely new airframe which would mean developing basically an entirely new aircraft.

The F-4 was different as it was originally designed and built as a carrier based fighter so the Air Force using it was no big stretch.

All of which is true, however, as I have stated all along, a multi role aircraft is a compromise. It's not going to do any of those jobs great. It might do some of them well, but it's not going to do all of them great. Our soldiers and airmen deserve aircraft that are Great. Not just adequate. Especially at that price.

I don't disagree. But while you are right, Congress wants to save money. And the way they see it buying three different aircraft types instead of just one is going to cost more money.

A-10 is being re-winged and given a glass cockpit. QIll be flying at least another 15-20 yrs

I know. But historically the USAF has hated the A-10 for 40 years. For the simple reason that the USAF (naturally) tends to hate aircraft prone to crashing. And in its first decades, A-10s had very high rates of crashes due to slamming into the ground during low level training. I used to watch A-10s do practice runs over my parents ranch all the time. They frequently dove toward the ground and leveled out so low that it scared the hell out of the cows. And we lived in a hilly region at that.

Now the A-10 has a strong core of support in the U.S. Army for obvious reasons. And in Congress. For once this is a case of Congress actually knowing more about what's needed aircraft wise than the USAF. '

I love the A-10 by the way. I think we need to build more upgraded ones. Perhaps a number of the proposed two seat variants.

The only reason the Air Force accepted the A-10 was to keep the Army from getting fixed wing combat aircraft. The AF has always hated the A-10, it's not fast and sexy and supporting the Army isn't something the Air Force wants to do.

They did a flyoff with the A-10 against a A-7E. But they said that only internal guns could be used. It all came down to the M-61 Gatling against the GAU-8. Of course the 30 mil won over the 20 mil. But the A-7E was capable of carrying 2 30mm gun pods. The A-10 could not carry external gun pods. The A-7E outperformed the A-10 many times over. It had the speed, had only 2 less hardpoints, carried almost identical payload, had about 4 to 5 times the range, could drop it's external ground attack gear and hold it's own with a Mig-17 or a 21 in a dogfight. The Navy never sent fighter Escort with their A-7s since the A-7 could convert in flight to a fighter. The "Test" was a fake. The A-10 was going to win no matter what. They just changed the rules to make sure it did. It was a political move instead of a Military one.

In all fairness, the A-7 was a vastly underrated aircraft. In the hands of a competent pilot it could outmaneuver even an F-15 thanks in no small part to its incredible roll rate.

..I didn't think the A-7 had the air combat radar/etc that the F-15 did?..so it wouldn't matter if the A-7 could outmaneuver it....the F-15 would shoot it down long before it came into ACM distance..the F-15 would see it before vice versa
50,000 fpm vs 15,000 fpm climb rate?????!!!!!!!!!
2 engines vs 1

I was referring to a close range dogfight. Guns and Sidewinders