|
Makes the French look good for Visnu's sake. The complete fuckery of the F35 again makes me wonder why the Russians could design and build the Flanker and Fulcrum for relative peanuts.
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:The A-10 is really cool as a death machine but is there any purpose for it anymore? It was designed to chew up waves of Soviet tanks and I don't see what it does nowadays that a drone or helicopter can't do. The A-10 has been phenomenal in Afghanistan. Something that can cruise at low speeds, in tight terrain and drop all manner of death on command is highly valued. Like the Soviet Hinds and Frogfoots before them, the A-10 is a ground soldiers best friend in such terrain.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:The Eurofighter is a hugely expensive Multinational clusterfuck without direction, completely fractured development and mediocre ground attack. The Rafale and Eurofighter sound like the best of the worst at this point, non-western aside. If you were coming in to buy them now from the outside it sounds like most of the poo poo costs have been paid by someone else.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It isn't fast, it isn't stealthy, and it isn't particularly durable (which isn't exactly unusual when it comes to aircraft). True, true, weeeeeeeeeell...not exactly. All aircraft are squishy compared to say, a tank, but not all aircraft are equally squishy. Titanium cockpit aside, like all aircraft if shot by AA weapons or missiles the A-10 will take damage. The difference is the A-10 is designed to keep flying with half a wing, half a tail, one engine and no power. So, I think it's definitely 'more durable'.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:If you're really interested in pilot survival, staying out of shooting range, using a drone, or making the airspace safer are all far better options than using a plane which is marginally less likely to blow up when shot. Hard to do 'close air support' if you stay out of shooting range, though you're right it would definitely be safer. It would be pointless, but way safer. Drones will replace the A-10 (or replace its replacement) one day, and they would be very safe for the pilot - buuuuuuuuut we're not there yet so that's not very helpful. And, as pointed out earlier, the skies are already completely dominated when the A-10's flying about, so that box is ticked too. Guess the A-10 really does tick all the boxes at the moment for its job.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Not at all. Like I said earlier, 80% of all CAS missions in Iraq and Afghanistan were flown by planes other than the A-10 using precision munitions. This isn't the 1940's, you don't have to actually strafe whatever it is you're trying to destroy from the air. We've had smart bombs for decades now. If the A-10 was an expensive plane I would agree with that idea, but it's not - it's dirt cheap. In a military that squanders billions (like on this thread!) scrapping something that cheap, that's that good at its job, seems foolish to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Not to defend the F35 in particular, but aircraft aren't zerlings and throwing equipment and people at the enemy isn't such a good idea for many reasons. You can only fit so many aircraft on a carrier. More aircraft means higher supply chain requirements. More expensive pilots to train and keep, not to mention potentially get shot down and cause morale and PR issues. Etc. Egad, zerglings! That's what we need!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if some F-35's get shitkicked by some 3rd generation Mirages or MiGs from some third-world shithole one day.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Or survive getting shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
I know we love trashing the F-35 shiftiest, but has there been any good reports on how it's in-service competitors [Rafale, Eurofighter, etc] have been doing (performance, issues, etc)?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Eurofighter has been plagued by technical issues (cost overruns, delays, lack of spare parts, design changes between tranches big enough to prevent retrofitting the older models, etc.). The RAF is planning on scrapping or mothballing its Tranche 1 aircraft when they get their replacement. The Typhoon is barely starting to get the upgrades needed to use it in air-to-ground; it's still just an air dominance fighter/interceptor as of now; when they've been used to bomb some stuff in Libya, they had to be accompanied by Tornado that did the laser designation for them. 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 15:30
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:I'm kinda amaze at everyone in this thread having a hard-on for gripen when it's the subject of national scorn over here at least once every year. It's all relative. You may have some fuckups but they're farts I'm a tornado compared to the US's. Are Russian and Chinese planes really significantly cheaper, or is it a bit of smoke and mirrors when it comes to accounting? If so, could their design/procurement system actually be less corrupt than in the US or are the planes just inferior design/build quality.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:There is a lot of smoke and mirrors when it comes to accounting. The various design bureaus tend to be incredibly corrupt, protective and catty, relying on politicians to steer projects their way, so about par with the western defense sector. Chinese R&D, aka stealing everything not nailed down.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Slightly less crazy because the plan was to nuke the sky over Canada (Sorry Canada!) instead of Washington DC. We need a :canadasmith: where he's wearing a red and white toque.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Any of you folks know an acceptably accurate source for the current "real" price for the F-35? Preferably the estimated price for a brand new variant of each model. I doubt the people selling the damned thing know what it actual costs. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Time to see if Trudeau keeps his word and pulls out of the F35 debacle. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
The Fulcrum and Flanker are pretty machines, Canada should buy those instead. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Except when they fall out of the sky randomly Ok, so they might have occasional rough landings. Still, pretty aircraft. Just replace the engines with US ones! It's like fusion cooking. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
How can anyone hate 'voodoo' as a name. Bears and B-52's, proving that when they peaked, they peaked hard.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Armyman25 posted:There's an old Cold War Era joke, I always enjoyed Soviet humour.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2016 15:26
|
|