- 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
re: The A-10 Warthog video the Air Force may not want you to see
Posted on 9/12/15 at 6:35 pm to FlyingTiger06
Posted on 9/12/15 at 6:35 pm to FlyingTiger06
Well then what is?
It obviously isn't the -22 as they closed production and yet they are postposponed retirement of the -15.
As far as I know, there aren't any projects in the pipeline to field another air superiority platform in the next ~15 years.
It obviously isn't the -22 as they closed production and yet they are postposponed retirement of the -15.
As far as I know, there aren't any projects in the pipeline to field another air superiority platform in the next ~15 years.
This post was edited on 9/12/15 at 6:47 pm
1
Posted on 9/12/15 at 6:39 pm to Volvagia
quote:
As far as I know, there aren't any projects in the pipeline to field another air superiority platform in the next ~15 years.
You are correct in that there aren't any projects yet, but there is a plan. The big question will be whether or not we can afford it. We are so far behind the power curve on modernizing our force that you will see some aircraft flying way longer than ever intended. Don't be surprised to see the B-52 around past 2040.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 6:44 pm to hawgfaninc
They're beautiful killing machines retirement will be a sad day
Posted on 9/12/15 at 7:04 pm to FlyingTiger06
quote:
You are correct in that there aren't any projects yet, but there is a plan. The big question will be whether or not we can afford it. We are so far behind the power curve on modernizing our force that you will see some aircraft flying way longer than ever intended.
Don't kid yourself. The F35 IS the replacement for the F15 and it IS the replacement for the A10 even though is absolutely incapable of performing either air superiority or CAS.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 7:16 pm to FlyingTiger06
quote:
You were wrong then, and you are wrong now.
Not really
quote:
That may be true, but when the adversaries are making their SAM systems, command and control assets, and other high valued targets mobile, long range cruise missiles are ineffective. If it takes the cruise missile an hour to fly to the target but the enemy can move the target within 30 minutes, what good is the missile doing? You have to have penetrating assets that can release weapons that will get on target before the target can move.
Cruise missiles can be redirected in flight.
quote:Build better fricking cruise missiles. It's cheaper than buy a 1000 jets that aren't worth what they cost. Or, just use our bombers to actually bomb targets.
You also aren't going to take out hardened and/or buried targets with a cruise missile.
Posted on 9/13/15 at 4:07 am to GeauxxxTigers23
These Air Force retards spend far too much time in a classroom and not enough time on the ground.
The likelihood of a near-peer conflict is virtually nil. You can have fewer 35's and 22's to develop and maintain the tech and still have the Warthog for actual, no-shite combat. If people think we're going to be rolling against Iran or North Korea and are directing strategic resources thereto anytime soon, they're pretty stupid. Hybrid state/non-state (like in Ukraine and arguably Syria) conflicts are the future.
The ground soldier is still, ultimately, the shot-caller. There should be no debate about that, and the Army and Marines still want the platform. Keep it.
The likelihood of a near-peer conflict is virtually nil. You can have fewer 35's and 22's to develop and maintain the tech and still have the Warthog for actual, no-shite combat. If people think we're going to be rolling against Iran or North Korea and are directing strategic resources thereto anytime soon, they're pretty stupid. Hybrid state/non-state (like in Ukraine and arguably Syria) conflicts are the future.
The ground soldier is still, ultimately, the shot-caller. There should be no debate about that, and the Army and Marines still want the platform. Keep it.
Posted on 9/13/15 at 8:39 am to AbuTheMonkey
They've been brainwashed with thousands of tiny details about air combat and they can't see the forest for the trees.
Posted on 9/13/15 at 9:03 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Cruise missiles can be redirected in flight
SOME cruise missiles can get updated coordinates in flight, but then you have to have some asset providing those coordinates. For the targets I'm talking about, that's not real easy to accomplish and hence is the problem.
quote:
Build better fricking cruise missiles.
And you think that will be easy to do?
Posted on 9/13/15 at 9:05 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Don't kid yourself. The F35 IS the replacement for the F15
You have proof of that I'm assuming?
Posted on 9/13/15 at 9:05 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
The F35 IS the replacement for the F15 and it IS the replacement for the A10 even though is absolutely incapable of performing either air superiority or CAS.
It's like the F-111 all over again.
Posted on 9/13/15 at 9:07 am to AbuTheMonkey
quote:
These Air Force retards spend far too much time in a classroom and not enough time on the ground.
The likelihood of a near-peer conflict is virtually nil. You can have fewer 35's and 22's to develop and maintain the tech and still have the Warthog for actual, no-shite combat. If people think we're going to be rolling against Iran or North Korea and are directing strategic resources thereto anytime soon, they're pretty stupid. Hybrid state/non-state (like in Ukraine and arguably Syria) conflicts are the future.
The ground soldier is still, ultimately, the shot-caller. There should be no debate about that, and the Army and Marines still want the platform. Keep it.
You sound just like all the Admirals in 1917 telling Billy Mitchell that the battleship was the king of the hill and there's no way they can be sunk from the air.Posted on 9/13/15 at 9:13 am to FlyingTiger06
quote:
ou sound just like all the Admirals in 1917 telling Billy Mitchell that the battleship was the king of the hill and there's no way they can be sunk from the air.
Actually you do, I've been saying that the need for a platform like F35 is diminishing and will eventually be gone and yoy refuse to even acknowledge that concept because it has been drilled into you that our Air Force needs to do that mission with a platform like the 35.
And Abu isn't actually saying don't be ready for a near peer conflict. He's just saying that maybe you should focus a bit more attention on the wars that this country actually fights, and not the wars that the glory hounds in the Air Force want to fight.
This post was edited on 9/13/15 at 9:19 am
Posted on 9/13/15 at 9:14 am to FlyingTiger06
quote:
And you think that will be easy to do?
I think its easier than building a trillion dollar stealth jet that is maybe just okay at everything.
Posted on 9/13/15 at 9:18 am to FlyingTiger06
quote:
You have proof of that I'm assuming?
Actually yes. It's called common sense.
See when you get rid of one plane in order to pay for another airplane, that's called a replacement. It doesn't matter whether or not the F35 can do what the F15 or the A10 can do. The Air Force is getting rid those two planes in order to pay for the F35, so when they say they aren't replacing them with the F35 they are lying.
Posted on 9/15/15 at 9:42 am to GeauxxxTigers23
Bump
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News