StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2002-09-27 03:08pm**

IG-88E wrote:Oh, I forgot this:

With their giant pop. China thinks they can absorb devastating nuke losses and still win a war. Your take?

China very well could survive a nuclear attack with current arsenals as a country. That’s why the US had bio missiles in the 50's and 60's, to kill China because nukes wouldn't do it. However they would be knocked back to the 1750's only with assault rifles.

However there chances of winning a war against anyone but a lesser boarding power like Veitnam are quite slim. Russia, even having taken a couple hudnred nukes hits from China would still stop them. Russia with both Chinese and American strikes would be another story.

Alot depends on what year where talking about.

Posted: **2002-09-27 03:08pm**

Because its us.

LOL! Oddly, That seems to explain alot! Hehe![/quote][/list]

Posted: **2002-09-27 03:08pm**

Icehawk wrote:The A-10 is a cool plane but from what ive heard its gonna be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strik Fighter in the years to come. I think the US military is trying to start phasing out using brute force "in your face" weapons like the A-10 and utilize as much guided precision based weaponry as possible for the future. Its kinda sad but it makes sense.

Who says the A-10 can't use precision-guided weapons? It can carry a laser designator, just like the fast-movers, and it can carry the LANTIRN system for night-attack capability. And since when were Hellfire or Maverick missiles not considered precision-guidance weapons?

Posted: **2002-09-27 03:12pm**

greenmm wrote:
Icehawk wrote:The A-10 is a cool plane but from what ive heard its gonna be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strik Fighter in the years to come. I think the US military is trying to start phasing out using brute force "in your face" weapons like the A-10 and utilize as much guided precision based weaponry as possible for the future. Its kinda sad but it makes sense.
Who says the A-10 can't use precision-guided weapons? It can carry a laser designator, just like the fast-movers, and it can carry the LANTIRN system for night-attack capability. And since when were Hellfire or Maverick missiles not considered precision-guidance weapons?

Youre absolutely right, the A-10 can carry any kind of weaponry currently used by the USAF, including air to air and precision strike weaponry.

Posted: **2002-09-27 03:18pm**

greenmm wrote:
Icehawk wrote:The A-10 is a cool plane but from what ive heard its gonna be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strik Fighter in the years to come. I think the US military is trying to start phasing out using brute force "in your face" weapons like the A-10 and utilize as much guided precision based weaponry as possible for the future. Its kinda sad but it makes sense.
Who says the A-10 can't use precision-guided weapons? It can carry a laser designator, just like the fast-movers, and it can carry the LANTIRN system for night-attack capability. And since when were Hellfire or Maverick missiles not considered precision-guidance weapons?

LANTIRN pods cost more then the A-10 that carries them, and are in very short supply for the USAF due to the great cost. F-teen aircraft can make much better use of them then A-10's, so they get all that can be had.

Maverick acquisition range is quite short, and the weapon ineffective against anything but extrame point targets, small bunkers and tanks. Hellfire's have never been carried or used in combat from the A-10.

If your going to use PGM's, the A-10 is pointless, your better off with an F-16 which wont require as much support by a huge margin.

Posted: **2002-09-27 03:20pm**

An avenger on a Bradley?

Someone's been playing too much Yuri's revenge.

Posted: **2002-09-27 03:22pm**

Sea Skimmer wrote:
NF_Utvol wrote:One thing you must take into consideration. The F-35, with its ducted engines for STOL means that is one more thing to tear up. Remember the old line Keep It Simple Stupid (im not calling anyone stupid). The A-10 is simple (comparitively) and has less things to get shot off and tear up than the more modernized F-35. Hey, im all for the F-35 and F-22, i just dont think we should be so anxious to replace tried and true aircraft like the A-10 with planes that havent even been proven in battle.
It is and will however be far less likely to be hit, and will be able to effective carry out its mission without the need to enter the range of optical light triple A and MANPADS.

Anyway, by the time the change over happens I dont think the A-10's would be worth the huge pile of money needed to rebuild them for another decade at best of service.

The A-10 is already designed to be as nearly impervious as possible to Soviet 23mm -- which is still a favoured weapon in many countries around the world. And with a small caliber shell, there's only so much you can do to "improve" its hitting power.

As for improved MANPADS... again, to be man-portable requires a fairly small missile -- and thus, a small warhead. So, you have only a limited volume to use to improve it, with most improvements being almost certainly limited to improved seekers, higher flight speeds, higher altitude envelopes, and improved range.

The other thing to consider, is that AA/SAM weapons aren't designed to take out A-10's, because then they become overkill for other aircraft. Almost no other aircraft has armor protection on it anymore, so they don't design SAM's to take out armored aircraft. And the majority of multi-engine aircraft either have the engines right by each other (making it easy for a single missile to take both out), or they have a really wide separation a la transports and bombers (thus requiring lots of rudder and a reduction in power for the surviving engine should 1 be lost). Even worse, while many aircraft do have redundant flight control systems, and a few even have hydraulic backups for any FBW (fly-by-wire) systems, nearly everyone except the A-10 has the backups right next to the mains... so that a critical hit on the main tends to take out the backup as well.

Finally.. show me that the F-35 will be able to come home fairly easily with 1 engine gone, half the tail gone, half of 1 wing completely shot off, and damage to the main body... because the A-10 can already do that...

Posted: **2002-09-27 03:23pm**

THe Yosemite Bear wrote:An avenger on a Bradley?

Someone's been playing too much Yuri's revenge.

Never played it actually. I just had the idea and thought it would be feasable and possibly even a good idea. I mean, it was designed as an anti-armor weapon. And what better use than use a fully auto tank busting cannon on armor?

Posted: **2002-09-27 03:30pm**

Sea Skimmer wrote:
greenmm wrote:
Icehawk wrote:The A-10 is a cool plane but from what ive heard its gonna be replaced by the F-35 Joint Strik Fighter in the years to come. I think the US military is trying to start phasing out using brute force "in your face" weapons like the A-10 and utilize as much guided precision based weaponry as possible for the future. Its kinda sad but it makes sense.
Who says the A-10 can't use precision-guided weapons? It can carry a laser designator, just like the fast-movers, and it can carry the LANTIRN system for night-attack capability. And since when were Hellfire or Maverick missiles not considered precision-guidance weapons?

LANTIRN pods cost more then the A-10 that carries them, and are in very short supply for the USAF due to the great cost. F-teen aircraft can make much better use of them then A-10's, so they get all that can be had.

Maverick acquisition range is quite short, and the weapon ineffective against anything but extrame point targets, small bunkers and tanks. Hellfire's have never been carried or used in combat from the A-10.

If your going to use PGM's, the A-10 is pointless, your better off with an F-16 which wont require as much support by a huge margin.

Then the F-35 will have to get just as close to the target as the A-10, won't it? As for Hellfires... just because they haven't been doesn't mean they can't. Mk 82 iron bombs haven't been carried by F-14's since it entered service, but it was designed to take a theoretical bombload of 14,500 lbs nonetheless. The A-10 is rated to carry Hellfires... and unlike the fastmovers, it has the agility at low speeds to actually use them effectively.

As for LANTIRN... the F-16 needs it for nightime operations just as much as the A-10, but the A-10 has a much smaller turning radius than the F-16 unless the F-16 drops down to subsonic speed... and in the CAS role, if you can't see your target because you're flying too fast, you're going to be useless to the guys you're trying to support. Besides, just like any other US aircraft, it can use laser-guided ordnance even if it doesn't have a laser designator on board, because it can also use ground-based designators.

That's the whole point... the A-10 was designed to be a subsonic, low-altitude, rough-field-capable attack craft. The F-15 and F-16 were designed primarily for high-altitude interception, with a secondary ability for high-altitude attack. Neither one of them is designed for low-altitude attacks... and unless the F-35 is as well, it will be a poor replacement for the A-10. In fact, the "F-35" designation says it right there: if it was a pure attack craft, it would be the "A-35", but they're probably going to insist on it having a major interceptor/air superiority capability as well.

Posted: **2002-09-27 04:24pm**

greenmm wrote:Then the F-35 will have to get just as close to the target as the A-10, won't it?

Yep, and as far as I know, an A-10 is much more surviveable than an F-35, unless they have stuck some more redundant controls, shrapnel resistant engines, and titanium armor in it! Oh, and F-35s aint got our old friend the Avenger either

Posted: **2002-09-27 05:16pm**

Uh, the averave speed of a helicopter (~120kts) and the top speed of a M1A Abrams (bout 60 mph) would not make that much of a difference when it comes to muzzle velocities of the 40mm. Honestly, i dont see what you are saying. I mean, the marines use a ground mounted troop carried 40mm autmatic grenade launcher, and im sure they have been mounted on hummer roofs and possibly turret hatch mounted on tanks.

This was back in the 70s. Actually, it wasn't the Abrams they were going to put it on. It was the MBT-70, the tank that would have been the Abrams had it not been scrapped. I read that when fired from the air of a fast-moving helicopter, it is more effective than just simply firing it from the ground. I don't know why, but they say the added muzzle velocity from the helicopter makes the difference.

Posted: **2002-09-27 05:27pm**

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:
Uh, the averave speed of a helicopter (~120kts) and the top speed of a M1A Abrams (bout 60 mph) would not make that much of a difference when it comes to muzzle velocities of the 40mm. Honestly, i dont see what you are saying. I mean, the marines use a ground mounted troop carried 40mm autmatic grenade launcher, and im sure they have been mounted on hummer roofs and possibly turret hatch mounted on tanks.
This was back in the 70s. Actually, it wasn't the Abrams they were going to put it on. It was the MBT-70, the tank that would have been the Abrams had it not been scrapped. I read that when fired from the air of a fast-moving helicopter, it is more effective than just simply firing it from the ground. I don't know why, but they say the added muzzle velocity from the helicopter makes the difference.

More likely it's the additional altitude from a helicopter that increases its direct-fire range. The muzzle of an M1 barrel is a lot closer to the ground than a helicopter...

Posted: **2002-09-27 05:34pm**

Also contributing to it is that if the grenades are higher up in the air, they will fall faster because gravity has more time to continually pull it down to the ground. So maybe that, in combination to the angles at which the grenades are falling, make it more effective than if it were on a tank.

Posted: **2002-09-27 06:28pm**

NF_Utvol wrote:
THe Yosemite Bear wrote:An avenger on a Bradley?

Someone's been playing too much Yuri's revenge.
Never played it actually. I just had the idea and thought it would be feasable and possibly even a good idea. I mean, it was designed as an anti-armor weapon. And what better use than use a fully auto tank busting cannon on armor?

Maximum GUA-8 penetration is only about 100mm's, its not going to be effective against the frontal arc of any MBT without pumping alot of rounds in. However it doesn’t matter, the M2 is far too small to carry one. Even if melted down and poured into a mold the shape of a Bradly turret, it still would not fit.

I'd say the upcoming fire and forget TOW upgrade would be a better option.

Posted: **2002-09-27 06:51pm**

greenmm wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
NF_Utvol wrote:One thing you must take into consideration. The F-35, with its ducted engines for STOL means that is one more thing to tear up. Remember the old line Keep It Simple Stupid (im not calling anyone stupid). The A-10 is simple (comparitively) and has less things to get shot off and tear up than the more modernized F-35. Hey, im all for the F-35 and F-22, i just dont think we should be so anxious to replace tried and true aircraft like the A-10 with planes that havent even been proven in battle.
It is and will however be far less likely to be hit, and will be able to effective carry out its mission without the need to enter the range of optical light triple A and MANPADS.

Anyway, by the time the change over happens I dont think the A-10's would be worth the huge pile of money needed to rebuild them for another decade at best of service.
The A-10 is already designed to be as nearly impervious as possible to Soviet 23mm -- which is still a favoured weapon in many countries around the world. And with a small caliber shell, there's only so much you can do to "improve" its hitting power.

As for improved MANPADS... again, to be man-portable requires a fairly small missile -- and thus, a small warhead. So, you have only a limited volume to use to improve it, with most improvements being almost certainly limited to improved seekers, higher flight speeds, higher altitude envelopes, and improved range.

The other thing to consider, is that AA/SAM weapons aren't designed to take out A-10's, because then they become overkill for other aircraft. Almost no other aircraft has armor protection on it anymore, so they don't design SAM's to take out armored aircraft. And the majority of multi-engine aircraft either have the engines right by each other (making it easy for a single missile to take both out), or they have a really wide separation a la transports and bombers (thus requiring lots of rudder and a reduction in power for the surviving engine should 1 be lost). Even worse, while many aircraft do have redundant flight control systems, and a few even have hydraulic backups for any FBW (fly-by-wire) systems, nearly everyone except the A-10 has the backups right next to the mains... so that a critical hit on the main tends to take out the backup as well.

Finally.. show me that the F-35 will be able to come home fairly easily with 1 engine gone, half the tail gone, half of 1 wing completely shot off, and damage to the main body... because the A-10 can already do that...

Actually the Zu-23's AP round, which is what' normally fired, will penetrate any armor on the A-10, as will several 20mm AP rounds. The A-10 was only tested against the HE round, which is normally only used against ground targets, not aircraft.

Your non-sense about "Not designed to kill the A-10" doesn’t fly. You'd be hard pressed to find a MANPADS, which had a target more specific then "Fixed wing Jet" in mind during the design phase.

However the current trend is to switch to Blast Frag warheads rather then Expanding rod, Blast Frag does far more damage for the same warhead weight.

As for backup pathing. Normally one of the two backups is alongside the primaries and the second along a separate routing. The latest aircraft have three backs however, normally two pairs.

As for armoring, the MiG-29C has thicker armor then the A-10 protecting its engines, the F-35 is going to have fragment proof plating along the sides and belly of its engine and forward protecting the main avionics bay.

Now as for the A-10's much vaunted survivability, it is impressive but you example proves little. An F-105, no armor, single hydraulic backup running alongside the primary, took a 85mm shell in the wing root which exploded. Blasted a huge hole in the wing including taking out the biggest of the spars, threw fragments clear through the plane, but the Thud managed to head south and land at Da Nang. Guess we better reopen the Thud production line en?

Then there was the F-15, which lost all but 15 inches of one wing to an SA-6 and returned to base. Then there was the B-52 which had three 3 engines and one complete nacelle pylon blown off, 15 feet of wing, red hot fragments through most of its 1000 square feet of unarmored fuel tanks, and the thing kept flying, dropped its bombs and flew hundreds of miles back to Thailand.

Examples of engines being blown off, wings torn away ect.. Can be found for all aircraft, it doesn’t prove much. Fact is direct hits by a MANPADS or 23mm AP rounds will down an A-10 as surely as any other plane, the designs said so them selves and combat showed it.

Posted: **2002-09-27 07:01pm**

greenmm wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
greenmm wrote: Who says the A-10 can't use precision-guided weapons? It can carry a laser designator, just like the fast-movers, and it can carry the LANTIRN system for night-attack capability. And since when were Hellfire or Maverick missiles not considered precision-guidance weapons?

LANTIRN pods cost more then the A-10 that carries them, and are in very short supply for the USAF due to the great cost. F-teen aircraft can make much better use of them then A-10's, so they get all that can be had.

Maverick acquisition range is quite short, and the weapon ineffective against anything but extrame point targets, small bunkers and tanks. Hellfire's have never been carried or used in combat from the A-10.

If your going to use PGM's, the A-10 is pointless, your better off with an F-16 which wont require as much support by a huge margin.
Then the F-35 will have to get just as close to the target as the A-10, won't it? As for Hellfires... just because they haven't been doesn't mean they can't. Mk 82 iron bombs haven't been carried by F-14's since it entered service, but it was designed to take a theoretical bombload of 14,500 lbs nonetheless. The A-10 is rated to carry Hellfires... and unlike the fastmovers, it has the agility at low speeds to actually use them effectively.

As for LANTIRN... the F-16 needs it for nightime operations just as much as the A-10, but the A-10 has a much smaller turning radius than the F-16 unless the F-16 drops down to subsonic speed... and in the CAS role, if you can't see your target because you're flying too fast, you're going to be useless to the guys you're trying to support. Besides, just like any other US aircraft, it can use laser-guided ordnance even if it doesn't have a laser designator on board, because it can also use ground-based designators.

That's the whole point... the A-10 was designed to be a subsonic, low-altitude, rough-field-capable attack craft. The F-15 and F-16 were designed primarily for high-altitude interception, with a secondary ability for high-altitude attack. Neither one of them is designed for low-altitude attacks... and unless the F-35 is as well, it will be a poor replacement for the A-10. In fact, the "F-35" designation says it right there: if it was a pure attack craft, it would be the "A-35", but they're probably going to insist on it having a major interceptor/air superiority capability as well.

Actually, NO. The range for bombs and missile fired/dropped at 15+K and 500 or so knots is about twice that of the same weapon fired/dropped at 3000 at 400 knots. And Targeting systems work better high because the air is cooler and the angle to the target more favorable.

Hellfire's really are not pointful on an A-10, Mavericks work much better and are found on most any USAF base, Hellfire's are not even stocked.

Where the hell did I say the F-16 doesn’t need LANTIRN for nighttime Laser attacks? I never did. However the F-16 does not need it for JDAM or SDB strikes, a weapons that the A-10 can't use.

These don’t even need a LOS to the target, just a FAC with a GPS unit and a radio. A laser helps but it can be eyeballed. Wind corrected Munition dispensers will also allow for Cluster bomb drops from 10-20K with the same accuracy as a diving attack with release at less than 2000.

Turning circle doesn’t matter, if your turning then your making more then one passes. Very bad idea. Low speed is nice, but it really doesn’t matter for GPS bombs, and for Mavericks it's not as important as it once was. With TV mavericks you can only use one per pass with an F-16, however Infrared imaging allows an F-16 or F-35 to fire just as many as the A-10 in a pass.

The F-35 doesn’t need to be designed for low level attacks because it can effectively attack from high, a far better place to be against modern defenses.

Posted: **2002-09-27 10:01pm**

I wasnt aware that the A-10 couldnt carry JDAMs. It can carry laser guided bombs, cant it? Or does that require the LANTIRN system?

Posted: **2002-09-27 10:13pm**

NF_Utvol wrote:I wasnt aware that the A-10 couldnt carry JDAMs. It can carry laser guided bombs, cant it? Or does that require the LANTIRN system?

It needs LANTIRN to self designate, but not to carry. However its a real pain to use third party targeting. Not only in terms of cooridaniation, but also a ground observer tends to lase somthing the bomb can't see, resulting in it going dumb or never getting a lock in the first place.

The A-10 can not carry JDAM or JSOW or any other GPS weapon.