F-35 to replace A-10?

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

boogieman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post13 May 2020, 02:48

XanderCrews wrote:if an Ov-10 finds itself in trouble it calls in the big boys, which basically has the big boys wondering why they need the middle man. A-10 is the same way. "Hey I need a flight of jammers, fighters, and SEAD to clear things out for muh hogs"

"hey why not take the 10 airplanes we are sending anyway with the ordnance themselves and just park your hogs?"

it brings up a myraid of those old jokes too. "ok the coast is clear. tell the mighty tip of the spear hogs its safe to come to the fight"

Reminds me of the APA F111 crusade. They used to jump up and down about the F111's range and how nothing else could replace it. Problem was that by the end of its life the F111 had to be escorted by Hornets everywhere it went anyway. The RAAF went ahead and replaced it with Super Hornet. What a shocker.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3016
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post13 May 2020, 02:55

“TR was first to write about USAF buying "new" F-15's.“

Here’s how it works brah. Apart from investigative journalism, writers essentially get handed the story by people who want them to write a certain piece (sometimes on spec) and know that the writer will write what they want them to write. It’s very mercenary.

Albeit on a different scale, it’s not unlike the quotes you see in many pieces from “the usual suspects“ — in that case the writer knows what he or she is going to write — or has already written the piece — and simply needs a good quote or set of quotes to fill in the blanks.
Last edited by quicksilver on 13 May 2020, 03:13, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3016
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post13 May 2020, 02:58

madrat wrote:What can OV-10 do a drone could not?


8)
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 May 2020, 03:56

boogieman wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:if an Ov-10 finds itself in trouble it calls in the big boys, which basically has the big boys wondering why they need the middle man. A-10 is the same way. "Hey I need a flight of jammers, fighters, and SEAD to clear things out for muh hogs"

"hey why not take the 10 airplanes we are sending anyway with the ordnance themselves and just park your hogs?"

it brings up a myraid of those old jokes too. "ok the coast is clear. tell the mighty tip of the spear hogs its safe to come to the fight"

Reminds me of the APA F111 crusade. They used to jump up and down about the F111's range and how nothing else could replace it. Problem was that by the end of its life the F111 had to be escorted by Hornets everywhere it went anyway. The RAAF went ahead and replaced it with Super Hornet. What a shocker.



thats what doomed the betty back in WWII as well. superb range--limited only by that of its escorts.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 May 2020, 04:29

quicksilver wrote:“TR was first to write about USAF buying "new" F-15's.“

Here’s how it works brah. Apart from investigative journalism, writers essentially get handed the story by people who want them to write a certain piece (sometimes on spec) and know that the writer will write what they want them to write. It’s very mercenary.

Albeit on a different scale, it’s not unlike the quotes you see in many pieces from “the usual suspects“ — in that case the writer knows what he or she is going to write — or has already written the piece — and simply needs a good quote or set of quotes to fill in the blanks.


absolutely.

and I alluded to this about Axe's twitter storm. its copy paste journalism. The story is basically written and one fills in the blanks. sometimes they even get totally unbiased sources like those from lobbyists, and other company sponsored "alternative concepts". wouldn't you know it that every time a V-22 stumbled the critics would see fit to include these "alternate suggestions" all of them invariably from one company. a great example is Saabs infamously sponsored "janes study" about the Gripen being $4700 an hour.


this is one of the many reasons why journalism is dying. Axe and company aren't doing anything different than most poster do here. they take various articles, post selected and pertinent quotes, give their 2 cents, and link to the articles. the difference is here we have more education and first hand experience and resources, and of course no one is paying us.

The purpose of journalism is to sell advertising. You don't get that with nuance and intelligent conversation. You get that with "58 reason the F-35 sucks" and if you actually research and find out that pure garbage, you contradict the article (which also happens a lot still: "although we aren't sure if these 58 reasons actually make the F-35 suck and the F-35 has been successful in many areas, we can all agree they are problematic" oh so it doesn't suck?)


everytime I hear about "journalists" getting shafted or laid off I get a nice warm fuzzy feeling. I also make sure not to click ads and use blockers and run them through other sites to get past the paywalls because i refuse to support prostitution. :mrgreen:

They aren't contributing anything. talking about opinions on the internet is a pretty common thing millions do for free. They sacrificed their chance to keep above the fray with more accurate information with more sources and research vs sensationalism a long time ago.

A lot of these publications are completely on the take, and one of the big hints is when the media and politicians all just so happen to start using the same phrases and buzz words all at the same time. which makes them nothing more than defacto commercials and propaganda arms. Canada's ban on "assault style weapons" recently is a perfect example of that. I had never heard that exact phrase before, and low and behold the CBC and Truduea and all the Canadian press and politicians just seemed to use all at the exact same time, it just magically entered the media lexicon. and its completely unused outside of Canada that I can see and it all happened the exact same day. Almost like it was an agreed upon phrase... like they were told from on high and colluded.
Choose Crews
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1186
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post23 May 2020, 20:48

Nice little video. There is no doubt that the A-10 is an engineering marvel (any functional/operational aircraft really). One thing I like about this video is what he says towards the end. It is something that many tend to overlook when debating/arguing about the A-10 vs *insert platform here*.

Hope you enjoy!
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3016
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post23 May 2020, 21:03

Zzzzzzzz...and so tell us — what’s new in any of that? Same kinda sentiment that gets trotted out every time the jet’s existence is threatened.

:roll:
Offline

marauder2048

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 914
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post24 May 2020, 02:47

An A-10 was disabled for a day due to a Golden BB. Since they recovered the "bullet" that's what maybe an HMG?

https://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/2172527/a-10-resumes-operations-after-engineers-assess-battlefield-repair/

It's the Golden BB has generally been the problem for aircraft in the face of ground fire.

Having said that even DOT&E (*spit*) assesses the F-35 as having superior survivability in the face kinetic threats
relative to the F-16 which has also been hit by small arms fire and AFAIK always managed to get back to base.

So it becomes a question of turnaround time for repairs.

Or avoiding ground fire by flying higher which is what the A-10 did in GWI and over Yugoslavia..which
rendered the gun useless.
Offline

aussiebloke

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post24 May 2020, 11:06

marauder2048 wrote: Or avoiding ground fire by flying higher which is what the A-10 did in GWI and over Yugoslavia..which
rendered the gun useless.


Someone reading the above would be forgiven for thinking it meant the A-10 was never able to use its gun over Yugoslavia/Kosovo.

All NATO aircraft were restricted to a minimum altitude of 15,000 feet over Kosovo from day 1 of the air campaign. This restriction was gradually lifted. A-10s were then able to use their guns and did so on multiple occasions.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 377
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post25 May 2020, 00:22

The problem is that the A-10 is supposedly "built" around the gun. That makes less and less sense when you can't use your primary weapon, because you need to fly high (where you can't employ it) to avoid being killed.
Offline

aussiebloke

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 22:29

Unread post25 May 2020, 07:59

kimjongnumbaun wrote:The problem is that the A-10 is supposedly "built" around the gun. That makes less and less sense when you can't use your primary weapon, because you need to fly high (where you can't employ it) to avoid being killed.


There is no doubt the A-10’s gun is a weapon that is only effective at low level. By the 1990s, in both Desert Storm and Kosovo, for higher altitudes the A-10 operated effectively with the Maverick missile. A-10s fired 4,800 Mavericks in Desert Storm. This represented about 90% of the Mavericks fired in the campaign. By the 1990s the A-10 therefore had two primary weapons.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1986
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post25 May 2020, 14:46

Pretty certain the A-10 was only built around the gun because when decisions were being made in the late 1960s it was the best and only option. According to some in the know AGM-65 became the primary weapon in the 1970s after trials - gun dueling things like Shilka at low level became more of a suicide run.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3906
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post25 May 2020, 15:20

basher54321 wrote:Pretty certain the A-10 was only built around the gun because when decisions were being made in the late 1960s it was the best and only option. According to some in the know AGM-65 became the primary weapon in the 1970s after trials - gun dueling things like Shilka at low level became more of a suicide run.


That's true, but there's another element to consider: Cost. A Maverick hit is a thing to behold, much more impressive than the gun IMO. But they're also expensive. Trashing armor with the gun is pennies on the dollar vs. most guided weapons, especially when the latter sometimes miss.

Of course, you can't use the gun at altitude, and even with complete air superiority there may be everything from ZSU-23-4's to MANPADS to S-300/400 batteries to contend with. I guess keeping a few hundred around for places like Afghanistan makes sense, but there's a cost to everything - and $ doesn't grow on trees. It's given out by Congress, LOL...
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2664
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 May 2020, 15:27

basher54321 wrote:Pretty certain the A-10 was only built around the gun because when decisions were being made in the late 1960s it was the best and only option. According to some in the know AGM-65 became the primary weapon in the 1970s after trials - gun dueling things like Shilka at low level became more of a suicide run.


Exactly!

Since the A-10 first entered in service (late 1970's) the aircraft's main weapon has been the Maverick missile.
Currently, newer and other weapons such as the GBU-12 seem to be complementing (or even in some/many cases superseding) the Maverick missile as the A-10's main weapon.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1986
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post25 May 2020, 15:50

mixelflick wrote:
That's true, but there's another element to consider: Cost. A Maverick hit is a thing to behold, much more impressive than the gun IMO. But they're also expensive. Trashing armor with the gun is pennies on the dollar vs. most guided weapons, especially when the latter sometimes miss.





There is also the cost of losing the aircraft and the pilot which can be more in terms of political cost - then the slightly not so simple matter of trying to hit difficult to see tanks in the right place to stand any chance of going through the Armour especially years before decent IR systems became available. The A-10A only had a useful night targeting capability in Desert Storm due to carrying AGM-65D where it could use the missiles IR seeker view.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests