Posted on 12/03/2016 9:08:33 AM PST by DUMBGRUNT
I agree. We should have a fighter jet that can pull 15g -- a pilot wouldn't enjoy that, but without a pilot on board, the machine can have higher performance. Also, fully trained pilots are more valuable than machines. Japan basically lost WWII in the air because they lost their good pilots. They built planes, but no longer had really good men to fly them.
Planes without pilots will have better performance, and you will never lose another pilot. Huge value.
How many recent sorties against tanks have A-10's flown?
I would seriously consider court martialing any commander who used an F-35 to attack tanks.
The A-10 is good for one mission, close air support in a permissive environment. That is it.
I am guessing modern production of an A-10 would be north of $25 million.
By that standard the F-22 is no good either, nor has been any combat aircraft the US as ever produced.
The A-10 beat the F-16 at gunsmoke in the late 80s or early 90s. I worked on the targeting system that made the difference. The next year they changed the rules so the A-10 wouldn’t win again.
“I would seriously consider court martialing any commander who used an F-35 to attack tanks.”
The F-35 can carry 2 of these in it’s internal bays, maintaining stealth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnouGF66CZ4
It can carry 8 total with a >600 mile radius...when stealth is not required.
All the while maintaining a decent Fighter capability with the best radar and sensors in US inventory...and two of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM
Why would you court martial an officer for sending this platform to attack tanks? It should be able to take out quite a few.
What about the Harriers the Marines used to fly? And the USAF needs to work and play better with others. So maybe the SoD needs to knock down some of those ridiculous boundaries.
“We can argue about this all day long, but put a few of these in the field and it’s game over for either plane.”
No, only for the A-10.
The F-35 can take out armor from 40,000 feet.
I started to caveat my post with the Marines using Harriers, but I felt it was such an Air Force/Army issue I didn’t include the Marines.
Really, it is about Close-Air-Support. The Marines do their own. The Army relies on the Air Force, outside of their Apaches.
There were plenty of weapons systems that would allow the F-35 to replace and pass all the roles of the A-10. All of them were cancelled. But at least we still have diversity training.
Those systems are in production now. The F-35 can take out more armor with fewer friendly casualties and greater survivability than the A-10.
And it can perform several roles which the A-10 cannot.
well, some old cars ARE better than some new ones....?
But they’ll get it right no matter how much it costs us.
The military is notorious for setting the face-off criteria heavily biased to what they want.
To modify Stalin’s famed quote “quantity has a quality all it’s own”.
“It’s cheap, tough, effective, and it works; has a quality all it’s own”.
“It was really neat to see it going down the runway, seeming way to slow to take to the air, have the gear retract from under it while it remained at the same level above the runway then do a hard bank as it began its climb. “
Saw that in Myrtle Beach back in ‘78 while driving past the base on my way into town. Did a double-take and nearly wrecked the car.
The A 10 works and it works in a lot of different situations.
High level military are notorious for working for defense contractors after they get out and skewing based on that before they get out.
They’ve been against the A 10 for a long time. It’s just not lucrative. Yet it honestly beats other aircraft. Like a good football team
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.