- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:03 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
They should just give the A-10s to the Army
Makes way too much sense. Will never happen.
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:04 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
They should just give the A-10s to the Army
You mean the Army that tried to tell my 2-star in Afghanistan that since an A-10 can fly for 4 hours, if you gave him 6 A-10s he could get 24 hour a day coverage for CAS by A-10s? Also the Army that convinced the AF to give them 3 C-130s in Afghanistan to make better use of them than the AF? Want to know how that turned out? Those 3 aircraft ended up hauling much less supplies and personnel to/from FOBs and spent more time being personal taxis for the RC-East Commander (2-star). Total waste of those cargo aircraft.
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:07 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
How many man hours does it take to keep a 35 in the air? How many to keep a B52 in the air?
Again, red herring...different types of aircraft and different mission sets. You might as well compare number of man hours to fly a commercial aircraft against the F-15C.
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:08 pm to FlyingTiger06
I'll let you search on your own.
This POS has been in development for over a decade with its first flight in 2006. It has already cost us almost $1.5 trillion dollars to develop and if it's current status says anything, it isn't even remotely close to use.
It is a money sucking black hole that is basically too big to be scrapped.
$1.5 TRILLION and it is still unusable.
Y'all should be ashamed.
This POS has been in development for over a decade with its first flight in 2006. It has already cost us almost $1.5 trillion dollars to develop and if it's current status says anything, it isn't even remotely close to use.
It is a money sucking black hole that is basically too big to be scrapped.
$1.5 TRILLION and it is still unusable.
Y'all should be ashamed.
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:08 pm to FlyingTiger06
Just tell me, is the 35 a better cas platform than the A10?
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:10 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:No one knows. The POS still needs another trillion dollars before it will be usable.
by GeauxxxTigers23
Just tell me, is the 35 a better cas platform than the A10?
Hell, by the time it is usable, it'll probably be out of date.
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:15 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Are you saying that the F35 can do CAS as well as the A10, that it can do air to air as well as the F22?
I'm saying it wasn't designed for either of those. The F-22 was designed to be an Air Superiority fighter, so no I wouldn't expect the F-35 to equal it. The A-10 was designed to be a CAS platform against 1970s era Soviet units. The AF screwed up the message when it intimated that the F-35 was to replace the A-10. That's not really the case. The F-35 was needed for more than just CAS and the only way the AF could logically find to pay for it was to stop spending money on the A-10. No one ever intended the F-35 to be a one-for-one replacement of the A-10 in the CAS role.
The A-10 does marvelous work in Afghanistan and Syria where we aren't facing any sort of surface-to-air fire. The point is that if we were engaged in a "near-peer" fight, you have to have assets that can roll back their air defenses enough to even be able to do CAS. That's why we need the F-35. Without the air defenses rolled back the A-10 will be sitting back doing nothing because they can't survive the threats posed.
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:20 pm to FlyingTiger06
A cynic could say we only need the A-10 to fight wars against nobody countries without actual armed forces. That video convinced me that if I was over there right now I would love a-10s because they keep us alive in that particular war.
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:21 pm to Scruffy
quote:
I'll let you search on your own.
No need for me to search...I have much better sources than you would be able to find.
quote:
$1.5 TRILLION and it is still unusable
The entire program is $1.5T. That includes buying over 1700 aircraft as well as all the research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) that went into this before we started buying the actual aircraft. And to say it isn't usable is just plain dumb. It is exactly where any other aircraft would be in this stage of development (i.e. not yet IOC).
You want to be mad? Don't blame the F-35. Blame our stupid Defense Acquisition System for all the bureaucracy that makes it take 12 years just to get close to fielding a new system. Blame that system for why things cost so much. And you know who forces that system??? Congress. Yep, and they also are the reason the defense contractors do subcontracts on these big programs to companies all over the country. That guarantees that they get support from multiple Congressmen for their project.
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:25 pm to uway
quote:
A cynic could say we only need the A-10 to fight wars against nobody countries without actual armed forces.
I wouldn't go that far, but I would go as far as to say they would not be used as they are now against a "near-peer" adversary.
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:47 pm to hawgfaninc
I just regained consciousness after an hour of youtube A-10 videos.
Damn badass motherfrickers.
Damn badass motherfrickers.
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:52 pm to DuppyConqueror84
Posted on 9/10/15 at 10:57 pm to wickowick
The A-10 is one of my most favorite planes ever. However, it's success is largely dependent on the fact that there is little SAM threat in the theaters it's flown in. The A-10 would get fricking raped with any threat of decent SAM sites
This post was edited on 9/10/15 at 10:58 pm
Posted on 9/10/15 at 11:08 pm to cubsfan5150
quote:
Just because it's still capable doesn't mean it shouldn't be retired.
LMFAO!
quote:
The CAS mission can be effectively done by other aircraft.
No it can't.
Posted on 9/10/15 at 11:11 pm to DuppyConqueror84
I spend 4 yrs as a forward air controller in 1st ANGLICO (USMC) doing CAS and naval gunfire and
9 months of those was in Desert Storm and there is not another plane in the sky i would rather be in communication with, i have seen that plane create more damage than any other and while i didnt make any calls over Highway 80 (highway of death) i saw the aftermath
and i'll never forget it, that low and slow is a amazing aircraft
9 months of those was in Desert Storm and there is not another plane in the sky i would rather be in communication with, i have seen that plane create more damage than any other and while i didnt make any calls over Highway 80 (highway of death) i saw the aftermath
and i'll never forget it, that low and slow is a amazing aircraft
Posted on 9/10/15 at 11:34 pm to No8Easy2
quote:
i'll never forget it, that low and slow is a amazing aircraft
If you've been in the military, the A-10 is the shite. I'd be willing to bet that the people who have a problem with it, were never in combat, and didn't witness the awesomeness of this aircraft. The only thing close is the Apache. I don't understand the F35 comparison.
Posted on 9/11/15 at 12:26 am to ByteMe
The reason you don't understand the comparison is because you CANNOT compare the two.
06 made the comment earlier... The slap-fighting over the 22 vs the 35 is a stupid pissing match. Same with the 35 vs the 10.
Nobody has said the 35 specifically can do CAS missions better than the 10. That would be stupid, because it clearly can't. Why? Because it wasn't designed for that. Nor can it be a great dogfight jet... Not designed to do that either.
The 35 has two purposes: full, internationally connectable communications suite, and no-warning given strike capability. No other jet on the planet can say it has the latter, which is why this aircraft has been getting all of that money you have all been bitching about. It gives the U.S., and its allies, a HUGE advantage for the foreseeable future in warfare.
The a-10 is undoubtedly the best at what it does... unfortunately for the aircraft and its fans, what it does is in limited scope in the big picture of warfare, and that scope is narrowing. It can't operate in an area that there are Surface-to-Air threats, and there are fewer places that fit that description by the month. For the a-10 to see its day in combat against a legitimate adversary, the F-35 would be the one that kicked down the door before anyone knew somebody was there, giving the a-10 its chance.
I understand the importance to someone who has had their skin saved by an aircraft as awe-inspiring as the 10. Honestly, at that point, you wonder how it could ever not be worth having. It makes sense when you look at it from their perspective, and I 100% respect their views. The problem is that on a tactical level, the f-35 is the aircraft of the future, and the amount of money that is being spent to maintain a low-scope jet like the 10 is the true waste of government funds, not the money we are spending to develop the F-35. The way it needs to be looked at is like this: If we pay now to get ahead, we avoid war and don't have to pay the more hefty cost of being caught with our pants down as we fall to level with our enemies. It is an investment in the future, and damn sure a worthwhile investment at that.
Aside from all that, we actually are making some of the money back on that program because we are selling the 35s to several of our allies (Britain, Australia, etc). Just a little blurb, not that it will offset the enormous total amount, but something is better than nothing. Still 100% worth it.
06 made the comment earlier... The slap-fighting over the 22 vs the 35 is a stupid pissing match. Same with the 35 vs the 10.
Nobody has said the 35 specifically can do CAS missions better than the 10. That would be stupid, because it clearly can't. Why? Because it wasn't designed for that. Nor can it be a great dogfight jet... Not designed to do that either.
The 35 has two purposes: full, internationally connectable communications suite, and no-warning given strike capability. No other jet on the planet can say it has the latter, which is why this aircraft has been getting all of that money you have all been bitching about. It gives the U.S., and its allies, a HUGE advantage for the foreseeable future in warfare.
The a-10 is undoubtedly the best at what it does... unfortunately for the aircraft and its fans, what it does is in limited scope in the big picture of warfare, and that scope is narrowing. It can't operate in an area that there are Surface-to-Air threats, and there are fewer places that fit that description by the month. For the a-10 to see its day in combat against a legitimate adversary, the F-35 would be the one that kicked down the door before anyone knew somebody was there, giving the a-10 its chance.
I understand the importance to someone who has had their skin saved by an aircraft as awe-inspiring as the 10. Honestly, at that point, you wonder how it could ever not be worth having. It makes sense when you look at it from their perspective, and I 100% respect their views. The problem is that on a tactical level, the f-35 is the aircraft of the future, and the amount of money that is being spent to maintain a low-scope jet like the 10 is the true waste of government funds, not the money we are spending to develop the F-35. The way it needs to be looked at is like this: If we pay now to get ahead, we avoid war and don't have to pay the more hefty cost of being caught with our pants down as we fall to level with our enemies. It is an investment in the future, and damn sure a worthwhile investment at that.
Aside from all that, we actually are making some of the money back on that program because we are selling the 35s to several of our allies (Britain, Australia, etc). Just a little blurb, not that it will offset the enormous total amount, but something is better than nothing. Still 100% worth it.
This post was edited on 9/11/15 at 12:30 am
Posted on 9/11/15 at 12:38 am to ksayetiger
I know a guy who's mom lives in bossier. She saw AF1 flying into Barksdale on 9/11.
Posted on 9/11/15 at 12:45 am to DByrd2
quote:
The reason you don't understand the comparison is because you CANNOT compare the two.
No shite? That's probably why I had a problem with the comparison.
quote:
The a-10 is undoubtedly the best at what it does... unfortunately for the aircraft and its fans, what it does is in limited scope in the big picture of warfare, and that scope is narrowing. It can't operate in an area that there are Surface-to-Air threats, and there are fewer places that fit that description by the month. For the a-10 to see its day in combat against a legitimate adversary, the F-35 would be the one that kicked down the door before anyone knew somebody was there, giving the a-10 its chance.
The fact is, it's the best at what it is designed to do and nothing has taken it's place...yet. spare me the the bullshite until something does better on the battlefield.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News