Likely a turbine blade or disk let go resulting in a high energy release.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vantage
Single engined navy airplane, what could go wrong?
One day, I will be able to share details on the amount of fail associated with the F35B.
Printable View
Likely a turbine blade or disk let go resulting in a high energy release.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vantage
Single engined navy airplane, what could go wrong?
One day, I will be able to share details on the amount of fail associated with the F35B.
Really cool man
JK
That is an old one but an awesome one!
Oh? Marine variant has trouble too? I don't have a huge issue with the idea of single-engine navy fighter. Wouldn't be the first time. And the F-16 is fairly reliable with only 1. I don't see it as a significant problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex3000gt
I tend to agree. I was mortified when I read they killed off the F-22. Bringing it back won't happen. Line is CLOSED. Sad that our armchair-pundits-in-charge (congress) decided the F-35 made more sense, even though it's got teething problems out the wazoo.Quote:
Originally Posted by NickS VR4
On the other hand, the A-10 needs to go. NOW. Congress can't keep cutting the damn defense budget--and then turn around and INSIST that we keep certain platforms operational. The only thing congress can mandate is a CAPABILITY to be provided--they aren't even remotely qualified (read: <20% even have ANY military experience) to tell the DOD HOW to provide it.
We could use a higher-payload-capacity drone--for sure. That's not going to be a difficult solution, simply increase the MQ-9 by 50-75%, give it a bigger engine, and call it a day. There's no need for a the Gau-8 anymore. Don't get me wrong, the A-10 is still a kick-ass plane, but it's outlived its usefulness. IADS and modern SAM & AAA are so much better than when it debuted. That's why it's relegated to ONLY CAS, and even then, it's still very much in harm's way. SFW's are much better tank/convoy killers. The M61 is sufficient for anti-personnel strafing--plus it's the same weapon we use for so many other applications that it would save money.
Even retro-fitting the A-10 for UAS ops would cost more than just building a newer, bigger, better UAV. Plus, the loiter time on a UAV is hilariously longer than any A-10, even with refueling. I wouldn't wish any single-seat pilot to be stuck "on station" for 10+ hours.
Wife just shared this with me. OH, FUCK YES!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO6eydRPpyU
UAV isn't the answer to every problem, but it's the perfect answer if you don't have an answer. You can't say that new SAM technology makes something obsolete when the people we tend to fight don't even have them. We are at the point where technology is a detriment to our missions. Everyone else that can put up a fair fight can't fight each other without dangerously approaching the nuclear options.
That being said, A-10 pilots are like DSM owners, experts in making do with the wrong equipment. I'd love to see an AF fighter jock accomplish anything holding 2 handheld radios and wearing NV goggles.
Honestly a Cessna 172 with a designator pod could do CAS these days, it's just when the real shit hits the fan you know damn well who the boots on the ground wanna hear above them. I'd bet the combat effectiveness of a unit would double if you just played that sound over a loudspeaker, lol. It's the same as why we issued PASGT helmets and bounced metal ones, it was more psychological than actual advancement in protection.
And it seems that is something the military struggles with. They're always ready to fight the last war.Quote:
Originally Posted by anyonebutme
The Air Force really needs to make something of the LAAR program. Why have Vipers and Strike Eagles burning holes over IQ/AF when modern OV-10 style aircraft could have accomplished the same missions at an incredibly small fraction of the cost, not to mention the abuse avoided on the 15e/16 airframes.
It will be a long long time until there's any UAV's doing any sort of CAS, hopefully when I'm using a cane.
I'm not saying UAV is the be-all-end-all for the USAF. I do think that the roles distinct to the A-10 are gone. PGM's are the name of the game, and even a B1 can do CAS thanks to a sniper pod & PGM's. Yes, that's right, a B1. I don't think "fighting the last war" is the whole issue--though it is part of it. There's also a tendency--in congress--to focus on JUST this war. JUST THIS style of conflict. Historical precedent or future potential has no bearing, and that's what's dangerous. If we invest in a weapon system that only works for CAS in an asymmetric environment, it will be nigh useless to us in a contested one. So I guess the point to be made is that we need a new weapon system that can be used for all types of conflicts.
What I'm saying is that if you really wanna boil it down, the A-10 is bested by the AC-130. Both operate within what would be considered a "threat" environment for SAMs & AAA. But even the mighty A-10 can't compare to the loiter time or the SUSTAINED firepower of an AC-130. The only drawback to the AC-130 is that it uses direct-fire weapons, rather than PGM's. That's where UAV's come in. We already can put PGM's on UAV's, and we have the sensor capabilities on our UAV's to accurately F2T2EA them. Performing CAS with a UAV is not even a huge step from where we are now; and that goes even more for JTACs lasing the target (because in that case, all the bomb dropper is...is transportation).
Eventually, (and this may well come within my time in service), we may get to the point where the UAV pilot stateside actually hands over control of said UAV's tageting functions to the JTAC for terminal control. I don't find that concept to be ridiculous or far-fetched.
P.S.
On an unrelated note, the USAF needs to bring back warrant officers. NOW.
Money Talk bro money talk