- 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
1
Posted on 9/11/15 at 3:14 pm to DByrd2
CAS in general will be a thing of the past in 10-20 years. Indirect Fire assets are becoming just as accurate as a smart bomb. We have surface to surface missiles that have a range of hundreds of miles, artillery and mortar rounds that are laser and GPS guided. These assets are more flexible, more responsive and easier to employ than CAS is. Plus you don't have to deconflict airspace if only IDF assets are used.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 8:35 am to cubsfan5150
quote:
Do you not realize that there are BRAND NEW gunships rolling off of the assembly line as I type this?
nevermind- but I don't think you know as much about the "new" gunships as you think.
This post was edited on 9/12/15 at 8:38 am
Posted on 9/12/15 at 9:17 am to cubsfan5150
quote:Anybody that is unwilling to accept the possibility of extreme incompetence and inefficiency in the government should but be taken seriously.
Are there really people out there that believe three presidents, three military services, and eight allies would pour a hundred billion dollars into a fighter that doesn’t work? Apparently there are.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 9:35 am to CajunSoldier225
A-10. 
Posted on 9/12/15 at 9:42 am to buckeye_vol
Inefficient is a given for anything government.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 9:43 am to slacker130
What exactly are you saying?
Posted on 9/12/15 at 9:49 am to cubsfan5150
He's saying the AC130 isn't the end all be all
Posted on 9/12/15 at 9:55 am to GeauxxxTigers23
I can tell you that having either the AC 130 or the A10 circling the base is very comforting. The A10 doing low passes however is MUCH more intimidating. That thing screams. Scared the F out of me one Am.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 10:06 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
If we need a deep strike stealth aircraft we can build more B2s
That's no easy task and wouldn't be good enough either. That's why we are getting a new bomber too (LRS-B).
Posted on 9/12/15 at 10:09 am to FlyingTiger06
quote:
That's no easy task and wouldn't be good enough either. That's why we are getting a new bomber too (LRS-B).
Well, whatever it is. I think a long range heavy bomber, the F22 or some type of air dominance fighter, and a really good CAS aircraft should be the mainstays of the fleet.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 10:10 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Some battle damaged A-10s. Couldn't imagine F-35 could take that...
The point of the F-35 is that it won't have to take that kind of damage. That's like showing pictures of the shot up B-17s in WWII saying "wow, look at that damage they were able to take; we should keep flying these things in the Vietnam War." Ability to take damage is a fall-back position and should not be the opening argument. Hell the B-52 has a lot of redundancy in flight systems and proved in Vietnam it can take a beating and keep flying. Is anyone claiming the B-52 should be penetrating advanced IADS?
Posted on 9/12/15 at 10:12 am to GeauxxxTigers23
Jesus, would you guys quit acting like this is some type of an eye for an eye thing?
Posted on 9/12/15 at 10:14 am to elprez00
quote:
The AF could to a full scale modernization program on the A-10 for a fraction of the cost of the F-35 to correct your issues and it would still be a far more capable CAS platform than the F-35 will ever hope to be.
And when we don't have the assets to take down the advanced air defense systems, you won't be able to do that CAS mission with the A-10. The #1 priority of the air component in any conflict is to gain and then maintain air superiority. We do this for two reasons. First, so that we have freedom of the skies to be able to roll in "less survivable" assets to perform strikes on fielded forces and provide CAS for our friendly forces. Second, because it protects our troops from being attacked by the adversary's aircraft. An American ground troop has not been fired on from the air since the Korean War. Think about that for a little while.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 10:22 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I think a long range heavy bomber, the F22 or some type of air dominance fighter, and a really good CAS aircraft should be the mainstays of the fleet.
You have to add the F-35 in there as a strike platform that has the ability to do self-defense against an air threat.
Look, I don't like the price tag of the F-35 either but that acquisition program is taking black eyes that it doesn't deserve. I have my own issues with it, but it is unfair to worry about comparing it to the A-10. That was a terrible job of PR by the Air Force. Just wait until the AF has to start figuring out how it is going to afford the LRS-B and what aircraft they are going to retire to do it.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 10:33 am to FlyingTiger06
quote:
The point of the F-35 is that it won't have to take that kind of damage.
Yeah, because it will either be grounded or crash before getting into the fight.
That's a good plan.
(ETA: The Army will fly the A-10 for as long as it is viable to do so - all the USAF has to do is say they don't want to fly it anymore.)
This post was edited on 9/12/15 at 10:35 am
Posted on 9/12/15 at 10:37 am to FlyingTiger06
quote:
You have to add the F-35 in there as a strike platform that has the ability to do self-defense against an air threat.
I think the need for a medium range strike platform like the 35 is going to be diminishing or going away in the next 10 to 15 years anyway. Like I stated earlier. Surface to Surface missiles are only getting more accurate, flexible and longer ranged. Long range bombers can launch cruise missiles from a safe distance.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 10:40 am to FlyingTiger06
quote:
You have to add the F-35 in there as a strike platform that has the ability to do self-defense against an air threat.
Meh - in the real world, they're never going to do that mission. USAF is going to clear the airspace with F-22s for the next 20 or 30 years - and then the strikes will occur in cleared airspace.
Although categorized as a fifth generation fighter - it ends up being a jack of all trades situation, being excellent at none of its assigned roles (maybe the strike role) - and it will have a tough time overcoming its current reliablity and safety profile - some platforms do survive this (UH-60) and rebuild their reputation, but most are a push, at best (Bradley, Osprey) and are often saddled with problems and hotfix upon hotfix that the users have to deal with for decades.
This post was edited on 9/12/15 at 10:41 am
Posted on 9/12/15 at 10:56 am to cubsfan5150
Its rather disturbing to me how they deflect the air superiority issues with "well its not really meant for that, the F-22 is."
While it is true, they cut F-22 production due to costs. So we just have ~200 of them.
Meanwhile, they are actively stating that the -35 is a replacement to current platforms which are air superiority fighters.
Hmmmm.
While it is true, they cut F-22 production due to costs. So we just have ~200 of them.
Meanwhile, they are actively stating that the -35 is a replacement to current platforms which are air superiority fighters.
Hmmmm.
Posted on 9/12/15 at 11:06 am to Volvagia
bookmarked for future viewing
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News