.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $9.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPMBT > TO&Es
Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 13th, 2016, 04:11 PM
Suhiir's Avatar

Suhiir Suhiir is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,829
Thanks: 542
Thanked 797 Times in 602 Posts
Suhiir is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

It's a good ground attack aircraft. It's not, repeat NOT, intended or designed to be a fighter (that's what the F-22 is for).

Excellent ground attack avionics. Carries an OK bombload internally for full stealth, and has external racks that can carry many tons of bombs/missiles. There are advantages to all three services using basically the same aircraft in terms of maintenance and logistics.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 14th, 2016, 03:44 AM
FASTBOAT TOUGH's Avatar

FASTBOAT TOUGH FASTBOAT TOUGH is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Kingsland, GA.
Posts: 2,832
Thanks: 781
Thanked 1,341 Times in 1,002 Posts
FASTBOAT TOUGH is on a distinguished road
Fallout Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

Personally I'll wait for "The Great Shootout" to be conducted early next year between the A-10 and F-35. Funny though that for all the talk about the A-10 and F-35, you're not hearing anything about the F-15E OK I am and they'll be getting an extensive electronics upgrade.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/n...rcraft-4820474
http://www.janes.com/article/59392/u...x-requirements
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...ike-eagle.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...g-variant.aspx
http://www.af.mil/AboutUs/FactSheets...erbolt-ii.aspx


The F-15E is the real winner here based on the fact it can fight it's way into and out of the target area, has a payload of 23klbs, as compared the F-35A at 18klbs and the A-10 at 16klbs. The F-15E during it's career has a shoot down score of 101 kills to 0 losses.
The F-35 will lose it's stealth advantage if it has to carry weapons externally-and wasn't that the point of the whole exercise in it's development? Internally it won't be able to carry a much larger payload than the F-22 in "stealth mode" and for all the "hoop la" why is the USAF being required to find a replacement to the A-10 anyway under the A-X Program?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/02/...s-a-10-legacy/

The Congress thus far is not necessarily supporting the USAF decision to look at, at least five "off the shelf' candidates. They are to look into a "ground up" option (And are.) as yet another paradigm shift is occurring with the resurgence of Russia and China. If you watched the news today there was a story about a U.S. Destroyer being buzzed by Russian attack aircraft (Unarmed however of course the ship is armed.) This is the kind of stuff we did to each other during the "Cold War". So I see the possibility of something that'll be a "hybrid" between the F-15E and A-10 based on their combined pluses if designed from the "ground up".

I hope you'll at least look at the chart of the above last ref. the F-35 has been added to a newer version of the same chart and it doesn't fair that well either. It's posted in this Thread already I think around Oct. 2015 time frame. Also only 7 or 8 A-10's have been shot down in combat. The ratio of loss vs. sorties would fall into the 0.000...range.

Operation Desert Storm
-------------------------------


OA-10A 76-0543
Shot down by Infra Red SAM (SA-9) 19 Feb 1991 62 nm North West of Kuwait city. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW (NF). The 23 US combat lost aircraft. Pilot Lt Col Jeffery Fox (40 from Fall River, Mass) call sign "NAIL53" was injured as he ejected and captured as POW and released 03/05/91.

OA-10A 77-0197
Crashed on landing. 23rd TASS/602nd TACW. Aircraft had been hit by small arms and was attempting a landing at KKMC FOL while in Manual Reversion after loosing all its hydraulics and in extreme weather conditions. On landing the aircraft cart wheeled wingtip over wingtip flipped over on to its back killing the pilot Lt Patrick Olson. There was nothing left of the aircraft. The remains of the aircraft were buried at the FOL.

A-10A 78-0722
Shot down in combat 15 Feb 1991. 353rd TFS/354th TFW hit by ground fire 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 'Gopher' SAM. Pilot Lt James Sweet ejected and made Prisoner of War.

A-10A 79-0130
Shot down in combat 15 Feb 1991. 353th TFS/354th TFW hit by ground fire approx 60 miles north west of Kuwait city while attacking Republican Guard targets. Thought to have been engaged by SA-13 'Gopher' SAM. Pilot Capt Steven Phyllis killed in action. Capt. Steve Phyllis died while protecting his downed wingman, 1st Lt. Robert James Sweet.

A-10A 79-0181
Crashed on landing, wheels up, hard stick landing by pilot Capt Rich Biley on 22 Feb 1991.

A-10A 80-0248
Shot down in combat by 'optical AAA' fire 2 Feb 1991 shot down by ground fire or SAM 20 NM SW of Kuwait City, Kuwait. Pilot Capt Richard Dale Storr ejected and captured as POW Released 03/05/91. From 23rd TFW.



Operation Iraqi Freedom
-------------------------------


A-10A (Serial Number : 78-0691) of 124th Wing/190th FS shot down by enemy fire, probably by an Iraqi Roland SAM; pilot survived and was recovered by friendly forces.

I was always behind the F-22 even as controversial as it was at the time and since in the last 3 years or so it's proved it's worth. Maybe the F-35 will prove me wrong but, from what I've been seeing thus far, I'm not ready to support it. Maybe the "shoot out" if done correctly will change my mind. But for now my money is on the A-10 and the more recently possible addition of the F-15E though no final decision on that has been made yet that, that I'm aware of.

Anyway I really need some sleep-I hope you all have a great day!

Regards,
Pat
__________________
"If something is not impossible, there must be a way of doing it." - Sir Nicholas Winton

"Ex communi periculo, fraternitas" - My career long mentor and current friend -QMCM/SS M. Moher USN Ret..
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to FASTBOAT TOUGH For This Useful Post:
  #3  
Old April 16th, 2016, 12:22 AM

IronDuke99 IronDuke99 is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 429
Thanks: 705
Thanked 99 Times in 79 Posts
IronDuke99 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
It's a good ground attack aircraft. It's not, repeat NOT, intended or designed to be a fighter (that's what the F-22 is for).

Excellent ground attack avionics. Carries an OK bombload internally for full stealth, and has external racks that can carry many tons of bombs/missiles. There are advantages to all three services using basically the same aircraft in terms of maintenance and logistics.
Fair enough for the US but in the British Royal Navy F35B will have to do fleet air defence, since it will be the Fleet Air Arms only fast jet. Certainly sometimes the fleet can use land based air cover and, again sometimes Allies can help, but, as history proves, sometimes the RN will have to rely on its own carrier based aircraft...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old April 16th, 2016, 04:29 AM
Suhiir's Avatar

Suhiir Suhiir is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,829
Thanks: 542
Thanked 797 Times in 602 Posts
Suhiir is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronDuke99 View Post
Fair enough for the US but in the British Royal Navy F35B will have to do fleet air defence, since it will be the Fleet Air Arms only fast jet. Certainly sometimes the fleet can use land based air cover and, again sometimes Allies can help, but, as history proves, sometimes the RN will have to rely on its own carrier based aircraft...
The problem is that for whatever reason (presumably economic) the RN isn't building/operating any full size fleet carriers. When all you've got is what are essentially escort carriers with a small aircraft complement it's not really reasonable to expect that air complement to be great at anything since by necessity they have to be multi-role.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old April 16th, 2016, 09:08 PM

IronDuke99 IronDuke99 is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 429
Thanks: 705
Thanked 99 Times in 79 Posts
IronDuke99 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Jets & Planes but no UAV's here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronDuke99 View Post
Fair enough for the US but in the British Royal Navy F35B will have to do fleet air defence, since it will be the Fleet Air Arms only fast jet. Certainly sometimes the fleet can use land based air cover and, again sometimes Allies can help, but, as history proves, sometimes the RN will have to rely on its own carrier based aircraft...
The problem is that for whatever reason (presumably economic) the RN isn't building/operating any full size fleet carriers. When all you've got is what are essentially escort carriers with a small aircraft complement it's not really reasonable to expect that air complement to be great at anything since by necessity they have to be multi-role.
Actually the two new Queen Elizabeth Class Carriers are the second largest Carriers in the world after the USN carriers. Over 70,000 tons, 920 feet long and and a flight deck beam of 230ft. They will be able to carry up to about 55 aircraft. They are roughly three times the size of the Invincible class they replace.

http://www.queenelizabethcruises.net...comparison.jpg
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.