FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Exactly, and when the public just sucks it up while ignoring the facts -
Same thing happened to the V-22
How Safe Is the MV-22 Osprey?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Exactly, and when the public just sucks it up while ignoring the facts -
Same thing happened to the V-22
How Safe Is the MV-22 Osprey?
Exactly, and when the public just sucks it up while ignoring the facts -
Same thing happened to the V-22
How Safe Is the MV-22 Osprey?
Well there is a simple solution to that problem make all marine transports have just one seat for the pilot. Not to make light of the grief of those who were bereaved but to measure the success of an aircraft in lives lost means you compare all SR-71s ever built with one C 130... Cheap journalism
The Swiss would make an interesting thread.
I didn't interpret their posts that way at all.
Are you referring to Vichy?
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
I can see what you're coming from Joe, I worked for SAAB for 12 years....
As they used to say about them/us, build great fighters, but lousy salesmen! Maybe that's about to change!
As with this and media again, remember those Top 10 shows on Discovery (or whoever it was), particularly the one about the
Top 10 fighters, in which the A-117 didn't do too well, well, duuuh......it's not a ifighter you d*mb*sses, I'm surprised
that they didn't put the Skyraider in there, while they were at it!
As they used to say about them/us, build great fighters, but lousy salesmen! Maybe that's about to change!
As with this and media again, remember those Top 10 shows on Discovery (or whoever it was), particularly the one about the
Top 10 fighters, in which the A-117 didn't do too well, well, duuuh......it's not a ifighter you d*mb*sses, I'm surprised
that they didn't put the Skyraider in there, while they were at it!
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
8,700 Swedish volunteers went to the aid of Finland in their hour of need...that's over twice the number of all the other volunteers combined.
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
....and created the F19 (fighter wing) for that purpose as well!
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I mentioned offset deals the other day, I thought this was interesting...
Lockheed Strikes S. Korean F-35 Offset Deal
Lockheed Strikes S. Korean F-35 Offset Deal
Sorry if this has been covered.
My knowledge of modern systems and aircraft are quite limited. I'm wondering if one of the main reasons for the F-35 replacing the A-10 is proliferation and use of newer MANPAD systems.
A common criticism of the program is that cheaper, tried-and-true systems like the A-10 are being phased out - and air support in future operations similar to Iraq and Afghanistan will be done with the vastly more expensive F-35.
But, as I alluded to above - will the threat of a relatively low-tech enemy with MANPADs be enough to make current inexpensive systems (Predator drones, A-10s, etc.) unworkable compared to new expensive systems such F-35.
My knowledge of modern systems and aircraft are quite limited. I'm wondering if one of the main reasons for the F-35 replacing the A-10 is proliferation and use of newer MANPAD systems.
A common criticism of the program is that cheaper, tried-and-true systems like the A-10 are being phased out - and air support in future operations similar to Iraq and Afghanistan will be done with the vastly more expensive F-35.
But, as I alluded to above - will the threat of a relatively low-tech enemy with MANPADs be enough to make current inexpensive systems (Predator drones, A-10s, etc.) unworkable compared to new expensive systems such F-35.
buffnut453
Captain
Greyman,
Everyone focuses on the A-10 and yet it's the F-16 and F/A-18 that have provided the bulk of air-to-ground CAS-type munition delivery in recent conflicts. The A-10 simply isn't needed anymore - other aircraft can drop the same ordnance and its gun isn't much use for current operations (spreading depleted uranium across terrain that's being used by ordinary folk trying to scratch a living isn't going to win the hearts-and-minds campaign). The biggest problem with the A-10 is its lack of utility for larger-scale operations against a well-developed adversary (too easily detected, too slow to evade and, despite its legendary toughness, not sufficiently survivable - it's SAM fodder). Simply put, the cost of maintaining a specialized platform like the A-10 isn't justified.
Everyone focuses on the A-10 and yet it's the F-16 and F/A-18 that have provided the bulk of air-to-ground CAS-type munition delivery in recent conflicts. The A-10 simply isn't needed anymore - other aircraft can drop the same ordnance and its gun isn't much use for current operations (spreading depleted uranium across terrain that's being used by ordinary folk trying to scratch a living isn't going to win the hearts-and-minds campaign). The biggest problem with the A-10 is its lack of utility for larger-scale operations against a well-developed adversary (too easily detected, too slow to evade and, despite its legendary toughness, not sufficiently survivable - it's SAM fodder). Simply put, the cost of maintaining a specialized platform like the A-10 isn't justified.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
I don't think MANPAD systems are in the equation for A-10 replacement. Although there are some pretty clever MANPAD systems out there, the A-10 airframe is getting old and can only be rebuilt so many times. The USAF put all its eggs in one basket in relying on the F-35 to fulfill some of the A-10s functions and as much as I support the F-35 I think this is a mistake. The A-10 has proved itself over and over as an excellent aircraft and IMO it should either be brought back into production or have a modern replacement developed for the same "low and slow" role. In the end the USAF should use 3 manned airframes in its tactical mission and have drones to supplement the mission as well.
buffnut453
Captain
The USAF won't like me for saying this but the AH-64 has eaten into some of the operating space previously occupied by the A-10 on the very slow, very tactical end of things while the flexibility of the F-16 and F/A-18 have taken a great chunks out of the longer-range A-10 role. Don't get me wrong...I love the A-10 but I think it's time has passed.
Flyboy, don't necessarily disagree with your statement about putting the A-10 back into production. I just don't know how viable that would be from a cost perspective given the ripple effect into planned force structures. We had similar discussions about other specialized platforms (like EF-111, Wild Weasels etc) that lacked direct, like-for-like replacements. From a pure capability perspective, it makes sense to retain the A-10 but not so much from a cost-effectiveness perspective.
Flyboy, don't necessarily disagree with your statement about putting the A-10 back into production. I just don't know how viable that would be from a cost perspective given the ripple effect into planned force structures. We had similar discussions about other specialized platforms (like EF-111, Wild Weasels etc) that lacked direct, like-for-like replacements. From a pure capability perspective, it makes sense to retain the A-10 but not so much from a cost-effectiveness perspective.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The A-10 can deliver a far greater punch than just about any combat helicopter around (except perhaps, for the Mi-24VM) and has a far greater survivability margin than any rotary wing aircraft.
When the A-10 takes AA over a target, remains on station until misson accomplished and then returns to base intact with it's pilot unharmed, you have just gotten a 100% return on your investment.
Not many other aircraft (of any type) can match that.
When the A-10 takes AA over a target, remains on station until misson accomplished and then returns to base intact with it's pilot unharmed, you have just gotten a 100% return on your investment.
Not many other aircraft (of any type) can match that.
ScreamingLighting
Airman
Not to mention an A-10 can't be shot down by an RPG-7 worth roughly 60$. Aircraft like the Hog, Frogfoot, and AMX will always have a place.
Never say never. An RPG-7 hitting the right spot can take any acft out of the sky.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
In the short term you're probably correct, but eventually those airframes will have to be replaced, especially considering the A-10s mission, IMO there will always be a necessity for an aircraft like the A-10 and I would also consider putting such an aircraft under the control of the army(it's been suggested before) but that is contrary to current operational military doctrine.
ScreamingLighting
Airman
Lot easier shooting a skeet than a rocket powered pidgeon flying at 200mph. Apaches have their place too, cooperating more closely with forces due to more precise ordinance. However, helicopters are simply more vulnerable and don't have the punch that an A-10 or Frogfoot have.
Glider
Captain
When the A9 (showing my age here) and A10 were being designed for the support role I always wondered why a naval version wasn't included in the scope, as it always seemed to me to be ideal for the Marines.
