Forum: Off-topic

broncazonk wrote:

flighthawk wrote:

Yes we have videos online now in the 21st Century - the footage was on several News web sites yesterday......

You need to calm down son. Just get to reading what CombatReform.Org has to say about CAS, and by implication, the F-35. Then report back to us with something insightful.

Bronc

Sorry - you obviously have a problem understanding what a Video is - do you need some..... help with that as well?
Laughing

F-16.net Sponsor

If a professional army is getting whopped by peasants armed with AKs the problem is with how the soldiers are armed, not with how the air force provides CAS. Soldiers with the ability to supply their own precision indirect fire support would be FAR more effective than any support the air force could ever dream of providing. Give the enlisted men on the ground weapons that can kill enemy in cover and access to persistent UAVs that they control themselves, even if they are completely unarmed, just so they can see whats around them. Bottom line is you can't count on air support to be there when you are about to get overrun; you need the firepower to fight the attack off yourself right the hell now.

sferrin wrote:

broncazonk wrote:

Here's another clue. What is the F-35 supposed to do exactly? What is its core / fundamental mission?

Bronc

Replace the F-16, F/A-18, and AV-8B. Derp. Rolling Eyes

Hi, I’m looking to replace my sportscar, my pickup and the missus’ prius with a single vehicle. Can you help me?
Why yes sir we have just what you’re looking for over here. We’re calling it the F-35 and she’s a beaut!

The F-35 - A hideous monstrosity by design!

The F-35 is not ideal but unfortunately in our current reality you are faced with either getting the non-ideal weapon that is designed to be immune to politicians or the weapon that gets cancelled. Considering the impossible goal they set out with I think they are doing a fine job.

@ Broncazonc, the replacement for the A1-D is the MQ-9 Reaper.

broncazonk wrote:

flighthawk wrote:

Judging by what you have put so far, I can only put my trust in your nurse taking good care of you.

Well... If you don't trust what I'm saying please spend some time on CombatReform.Org. http://www.combatreform.org/aircommandos.htm

So I only checked out the first link, and what I'm seeing is a bunch of really out-of-date articles collected by someone with only a vague knowledge of how websites work with a particular point of view (yours only), so pardon me if I'm not impressed. Do you have anything regarding CAS from the past, oh, 8 years?

So Bronc, what do you expect the development cost per unit to integrate the required avionics to use SAR pods, sniper pods and drop PGM's will be? ..or do you plan to use dumb bombs only?
How many aircraft would you suggest? Will they be replacing F-35's or A-10's? What percentage of these aircraft would you replace with Skyraiders?
How much do you think each unit will cost when its carrying all the sensors and pods needed to drop modern weapons?

broncazonk wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

I'm a ground pounder, and I would be humiliated to be covered by this aircraft in a modern war...

Boy that's hard to believe. I never felt humiliated when something that was damn sure going to save my life showed up overhead. Even if it was painted pink sporting fairy wings I was in love with it.

stereospace wrote:

Not that anyone would actually build A1 Skyraiders again, but that a fuel sipping, low-medium speed, heavily armored (like an A-10) and heavily armed aircraft has a place in a conflict like this. Suppose you can get something like this $10-15 million each? That means I can put five to seven of these up for each F-35, not to battle Flankers, to loiter around and put fire on insurgents.

Yep. That's the point. We need a modern all-weather version of the A1-D / A-10. And you wouldn't get 5 to 7 of them, more like 10 for the cost of each F-35.

The A1-D thought experiment: Still slaying them six-months down the road. Here's another clue. What is the F-35 supposed to do exactly? What is its core / fundamental mission?

Bronc

Your joke kills; consider me slain. LMAO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M

broncazonk wrote:

flighthawk wrote:

Judging by what you have put so far, I can only put my trust in your nurse taking good care of you.

Well... If you don't trust what I'm saying please spend some time on CombatReform.Org. http://www.combatreform.org/aircommandos.htm

30-minutes of some very simple reading should straighten your little weenie out. Laughing

This (below) is a very good two-page paper on the issue from some fairly credible guys.

http://www.combatreform.org/AFJIdecembe ... ative3.jpg

http://www.combatreform.org/AFJIdecembe ... ative4.jpg

Please read and learn for 30-minutes before you embarr-a$$ yourself again.

Bronc

That's absolute gold. Thanks for the laugh there Bronc. Besides the fact that those articles were little more than a good argument for an A-10 rather rather than an A-1 one of the authors is the well-known Internet kook - Mike Sparks!

He of the indomitable M113 Gavin...

http://combatreform.org/mikesparksm113gavin.htm\

Your credibility has now dropped below the zero you were previously at...

broncazonk wrote:

Well... If you don't trust what I'm saying please spend some time on CombatReform.Org. http://www.combatreform.org/aircommandos.htm

You're Mike Sparks, AKA Sparky aren't you. Laughing

Conan wrote:

That's absolute gold. Thanks for the laugh there Bronc. Besides the fact that those articles were little more than a good argument for an A-10 rather rather than an A-1 one of the authors is the well-known Internet kook - Mike Sparks!

He of the indomitable M113 Gavin...

http://combatreform.org/mikesparksm113gavin.htm\

Your credibility has now dropped below the zero you were previously at...

Hahahah, I wasn't the only one that twigged who it was then! Comedy Gold.

shep1978 wrote:

broncazonk wrote:

Well... If you don't trust what I'm saying please spend some time on CombatReform.Org. http://www.combatreform.org/aircommandos.htm

You're Mike Sparks, AKA Sparky aren't you. Laughing

Obviously not, If he was in fact Mike Sparks we'd get to hear about how we don't even need an Air Force because an M113A3 with some SAMs would be more than adequate at knocking out all enemy aircraft. Laughing

Its a real hoot reading that Combat Reform site, one line that instantly caught my eye was a photo of an A-10 with the caption:

"Single-seat A-10s strafe a friendly British vehicle convoy: USAF SABOTAGE OF THE A-10 IS THE REAL CAUSE"

(Yes, that was in all caps at the end, not my doing either!) Wink

broncazonk wrote:

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

If only we had some sort of guided weapon so aircraft wouldn't have to fly low- imagine if the ground troops could just send the enemy's position to an aircraft, and the aircraft could drop a bomb that would guide itself to the target. Wouldn't that be something!

But your missing the whole point (and value) of CAS. When you get on the radio begging for air support (and trust me on this, you're always begging) you need it NOW, not 45 minutes from now, or two hours from now, like the way it is these days.

You bet, having super accurate CAS is wonderful. But having CAS right now is GOLDEN.

We would be much more successful in our Afghanistan/Iraq ground operations if we could pick up the CAS reponse times up in firefights. Its stupid silly right now. By the time the package arrives, all the (smart) bad guys have run off, departed, fled the scene, because (1) it's patently obvious to the enemy when we call in an airstrike and (2) sometimes they have over an hour to clear the area.

So all that F-35 high-tech CAS will be/is meaningless, if we can't/don't improve the Johnny on the Spot quotient to CAS.

We need something that has the ability to get down in the weeds and stay there. All that 5th-Gen technology needs to be going towards that. Something that will loiter on overwatch while our ground units are out on patrol and then target an enemy force with a wide-angle FLIR if we are engaged and then something that will keep the enemy fixed in place (and keep them from running off) while our guys get out of the kill zone and into position to liquidate the enemy is what we need. The Reaper/Predator system carries just enough ordanance to be lethal, but not enough to be decisive in big, extended shootouts.

Bronc

This sounds like a perfect job for an AC-130. The F-35 on the other hand is primarily a strike fighter. This means that its most likely targets aren't enemy troops, but SAMs, TBMs, tanks, artillery/MLRS, radar/communications networks, infrastructure, enemy fighters/attack aircraft, etc... Only the USMC intend to use it primarily in direct support of ground forces, and with the STOVL models, their sortie rates, should be good for that.

jeffb wrote:

Hi, I’m looking to replace my sportscar, my pickup and the missus’ prius with a single vehicle. Can you help me?
Why yes sir we have just what you’re looking for over here. We’re calling it the F-35 and she’s a beaut!

The F-35 - A hideous monstrosity by design!

So is the F-16 the sports car, the F-18 the truck, and the AV-8 the Prius?

Forum: Off-topic

Why the A1-D is better than the F-35...