Started By
Message
re: Any Air Force or Jet enthusiasts on here?
Posted on 7/5/17 at 9:10 pm to MaroonNation
Posted on 7/5/17 at 9:10 pm to MaroonNation
F-15 > F-18 > F-22 > F-16
0
Posted on 7/6/17 at 7:57 am to Spock_4_AU
F-22 Raptor with its F119 Pratt & Whitney vectoring engines is bad arse...
F-16 is still the porche in the sky
but for me it is fly by wire A-10 Warthog
F-16 is still the porche in the sky
but for me it is fly by wire A-10 Warthog
Posted on 7/6/17 at 8:08 am to AirDawg
The A-10 is neat for sure. I used to watch it fly overhead everyday.
Unfortunately it doesn't have the same viability on the modern battlefield it once did. Less effective Close air support than AH-64s and with no air to air capability. It does hold advantage over helicopters with its speed.
Where it has really found its path to survival is that it is incredibly cheap to operate relative to an F-35, B-1, etc. For dropping guided bombs on terrorists it is still very useful and the price is right.
Unfortunately it doesn't have the same viability on the modern battlefield it once did. Less effective Close air support than AH-64s and with no air to air capability. It does hold advantage over helicopters with its speed.
Where it has really found its path to survival is that it is incredibly cheap to operate relative to an F-35, B-1, etc. For dropping guided bombs on terrorists it is still very useful and the price is right.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 8:51 am to GnashRebel
quote:
Less effective Close air support than AH-64s
Exactly how? The AH-64 has four hardpoints and is limited to unguided rockets and Hellfire missiles. It has a maximum combat radius of about 250 miles and isn't capable of aerial refueling.
The A-10 can carry all but a handful of weapons in the USAF arsenal including Paveway Laser guided bombs, JDAM GPS guided bombs, Maverick missiles, WCMD guided cluster bombs and unguided bombs and rockets. It has 11 hardpoints that individually are capable of carrying heavier ordinance that the entire combat load of an Apache. The A-10 is capable of aerial refueling, giving it an unlimited combat radius. Unrefueled, it can fly to the Apache's radius limit and then loiter on station for 2 hours. It is also vastly more survivable than the Apache and, as you noted, much faster.
In short, there's no world where the AH-64 is anywhere close to the A-10 in capability. That's not to trash the Apache, it is a great attack helicopter and superb in its role but the A-10 has capabilites NO attack helicopter could ever hope to approach.
quote:
with no air to air capability.
What's that on the far left hardpoint? It ain't a fighter, but its air to air self defense capability is better than an Apache.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 9:12 am to Spock_4_AU
is this the one with the dope arse helmet that allows you to see under and all around the plane?
Posted on 7/6/17 at 10:37 am to JustGetItRight
quote:
Exactly how? The AH-64 has four hardpoints and is limited to unguided rockets and Hellfire missiles. It has a maximum combat radius of about 250 miles and isn't capable of aerial refueling.
That is why I said it has the speed advantage. It can come on station faster Either because of its speed or the fact that it can stay in the air for a long time waiting for something to happen, refueling in air.
Your description of hardpoints was incomplete. One hardpoint on an attack helicopter can carry 4 missiles, each capable of destroying any tank on the planet. So they can actually carry 16 missiles. They will also never operate in numbers less than two so you double everything up. They also have the ability to fire the gun off axis, so circling and shooting at targets for an extended period of time. Warhogs have a gun fixed to the aircraft so they actually have to fly out, make a run and physically point the aircraft at the target.
Attack helicopters don't require an improved area to operate out of so if you are planning an operation you can pre-position a number of aircraft and a FARP for them to refuel and rearm out of so they can provide continuous coverage on station. A-10s require an improved airfield.
As for air to air, you can theoretically slap air to air missiles on and Apache, that doesn't mean it is a good idea and it isn't even trained.
The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps have spent a lot of money on aircraft that can drop the bombs. None of them are as cost effective or specialized as the A-10 but they are meant to take away some of its purpose. I did not say the A-10 wasn't a cool plane that does great work. It just finds itself living in a world where its purpose has diminished over time.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 4:14 pm to GnashRebel
quote:
Your description of hardpoints was incomplete. One hardpoint on an attack helicopter can carry 4 missiles, each capable of destroying any tank on the planet. So they can actually carry 16 missiles. They will also never operate in numbers less than two so you double everything up. They also have the ability to fire the gun off axis, so circling and shooting at targets for an extended period of time. Warhogs have a gun fixed to the aircraft so they actually have to fly out, make a run and physically point the aircraft at the target.
16 Hellfires is max load, which places restrictions on range, but if you want to go that route, A-10 hardpoints can employ triple ejector racks for Mavericks too. A Maverick has either a 150 or 300 pound warhead depending on the model. A Hellfire has 20 pound warhead. You tell me which is guaranteed to destroy any vehicle on the planet?
The airfield point is valid.
The ability to fire off boresight while circling the target is only useful where there's no anti-air threat. Do that in an Apache where the enemy has modern MANPADs and you're going to be testing those crash absorbing seats in very short order.
Attack helos are tremendous in low intensity conflicts like Afghanistan. They're useful in anti-armor roles where air dominance has been established, but they simply cannot compete with fixed wing assets like the A-10 in any other scenario.
Posted on 7/6/17 at 8:22 pm to JustGetItRight
Hellfire is plenty for killing vehicles. It doesn't have to be a massive detonation to punch a hole through the top of a tanks armor and take it out of the fight. Ask the Iraqis. It can also destroy lighter vehicles but the 30mm does that job too.
You are correct that the AH-64 should be used cautiously in a high ADA threat area but the same applies to the A-10. And the Army and Marine Corps understand that they may lose some aircraft in a close combat role and attempt to diminish the risk as best they can. But the threat is a fact of life.
You are correct that the Helos shine in low intensity conflicts although circa 1980 everyone thought the MANPAD had spelled the demise of the attack helicopter. But they were wrong. It was very effective against the Iraqi Army in the first Gulf War. Was very effective in Iraq and Afghanistan despite one particular mission that was terrible for PR. AHs are primarily part of the combined arms team the Army and Marine Corps use. It doesn't have to advance far beyond the FLOT to be effective. That is what CCA or CAS is for. By definition it isn't normally going to be executed in an are dominated by enemy ADA because the ground troops are already nearly there.
I never said there wasn't a moment that the A-10 was a great asset to have on station. What I am saying is it CANNOT do for the Army and Marine Corps what attack aviation can nor would anyone in the leadership of those services suggest it can. It also cannot do the things that B-2 or B-1 can do for bombing purposes and it cannot provide Air Supremacy like F-22, F-35 or even F-16 or F-18 is intended to. It cannot provide the electronic warfare services of other assets.
The problem is that different airframes have chipped away at pieces of what the A-10 does and it is reaching the end of its days. It may be the best under certain situations but just not enough.
You are correct that the AH-64 should be used cautiously in a high ADA threat area but the same applies to the A-10. And the Army and Marine Corps understand that they may lose some aircraft in a close combat role and attempt to diminish the risk as best they can. But the threat is a fact of life.
You are correct that the Helos shine in low intensity conflicts although circa 1980 everyone thought the MANPAD had spelled the demise of the attack helicopter. But they were wrong. It was very effective against the Iraqi Army in the first Gulf War. Was very effective in Iraq and Afghanistan despite one particular mission that was terrible for PR. AHs are primarily part of the combined arms team the Army and Marine Corps use. It doesn't have to advance far beyond the FLOT to be effective. That is what CCA or CAS is for. By definition it isn't normally going to be executed in an are dominated by enemy ADA because the ground troops are already nearly there.
I never said there wasn't a moment that the A-10 was a great asset to have on station. What I am saying is it CANNOT do for the Army and Marine Corps what attack aviation can nor would anyone in the leadership of those services suggest it can. It also cannot do the things that B-2 or B-1 can do for bombing purposes and it cannot provide Air Supremacy like F-22, F-35 or even F-16 or F-18 is intended to. It cannot provide the electronic warfare services of other assets.
The problem is that different airframes have chipped away at pieces of what the A-10 does and it is reaching the end of its days. It may be the best under certain situations but just not enough.
Posted on 7/7/17 at 6:50 am to JustGetItRight
nm
This post was edited on 7/7/17 at 7:06 am
Posted on 7/7/17 at 8:15 am to JustGetItRight
FYI, in 2007 which was the deadliest year for use troops in Iraq, Apaches accounted for 71% of all enemy killed. Killed by anything air or ground. 
Posted on 7/7/17 at 8:20 am to JustGetItRight
BTW, no conversation on CAS would be complete without this craziness. I actually met one of the crewman for one of these things and he said the first time they showed up it took the enemy completely by surprise.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 7/8/17 at 6:44 am to Spock_4_AU
My personal favorite. A little biased because my dad built them up until joining the Marines. He spent 66-67 in Da Nang and Chu Lai with VMFA 323.
The plane in the picture was the only Marine aircraft shot down by a SAM. It was shot down the first week the squadron was operating in country.
As Maroon stated the lack of an internal gun was a problem and the pods that they attached weren't a great fix. The squadron CO was heading back to base after an air support mission and had dropped all ordinance when he caught a group of VC walking buffalo across a paddy. Talbot swung around for a pass and got nothing out of the gun pod. A second pass produced similar results. On the 3rd pass Talbot dropped his tail hook and went to the deck after them. He landed and was extremely pissed. The pod's turbine wouldn't deploy rendering it useless.
Dad's crew spent a couple of hrs pulling grass out of the wings.
The plane in the picture was the only Marine aircraft shot down by a SAM. It was shot down the first week the squadron was operating in country.
As Maroon stated the lack of an internal gun was a problem and the pods that they attached weren't a great fix. The squadron CO was heading back to base after an air support mission and had dropped all ordinance when he caught a group of VC walking buffalo across a paddy. Talbot swung around for a pass and got nothing out of the gun pod. A second pass produced similar results. On the 3rd pass Talbot dropped his tail hook and went to the deck after them. He landed and was extremely pissed. The pod's turbine wouldn't deploy rendering it useless.
Dad's crew spent a couple of hrs pulling grass out of the wings.
This post was edited on 7/8/17 at 7:15 am
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News