"End looms for US Air Force's 'Warthog' ground-attack jet" This is Ridiculous!

You see, that is because I do not argue.

I debate.

Something completely different. I debate, you argue. I am interested in exchanging information, to try and inform others. You only want to batter somebody until they agree with you and nothing else.

So guess what, you win. You won the argument, because I am simply sick and tired of this. And yea, good references. How many in here other then you can verify that they say what you claim they say? You have done this repeatedly when you are backed into a corner. Somebody like me challenges you for a reference, and you vomit up something in Russian, that nobody can verify anything on.

Hey, I have a reference that says everything I say is right!

http://www.mod.go.jp/j/approach/agenda/guideline/2013/2013seibi.pdf

You can't read it? Well, tough luck. It says I am right, you are wrong, so go suck on it. You just have to accept me when I say that, I am telling you I am right and that is the end of it. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

Oh, and welcome to a small group of individuals.

 

I know this might be slightly off topic but it needs to be said.

When different people from different Nations or Backgrounds argue about the potency and abilities of their various nations weapons systems we the membership should NOT turn this into a P!$$!NG CONTEST!!!

We should just debate and provide proof and links to our posts.

Another manner to provide PROOF to whether a certain Military System was good or bad or mediocre is HOW IT WAS USED....HOW WELL THE PEOPLE WHO USED IT WERE....CONDITIONS IT WAS USED IN.....WHAT CONDITIONS CAN OR COULD IT BE USED IN....WHAT OTHER WEAPONS SYSTEMS WERE USED IN COMBINATION WITH IT.....AND NUMBERS USED.

Now as example.....an AK-47 can be thrown in water, mud, sand.....etc....and even a CHILD can use it and fire it as the AK-47 was designed for simple Russian Soldiers who many did not even Graduate High School and the AK-47 was designed to work under all conditions and in making so reliable a weapon certain other possible benefits had to be sacrificed.

The M-16 was NOT the ideal weapon for Jungle Warfare as the New M-16 still had issues...it had to be constantly cleaned in a Jungle Warfare Atmosphere.....but it's idea would be honed until current M-16 Varients and the M4 have virtually no issues in the Desert Sand which at one time would have jammed the M-16.

Now....I will not go deeper into this right now but others might talk about how an M-16 or Varient of's ability to allow a Soldier to carry more ammo as well as it far greater effective range....and incredible ability to create massive wounds in the Human Body due to Round Tumbling and Fragmentation and Hydrostatic Shock to the body....makes the M-16 or M4 a weapon you do NOT want to be shot with as an AK's heavier round can just shoot through and through a fleshy non-organ or bone part of the body and the person shot will survive as if shot by the M-16 or M4.....even a shot to the arm usually results in DEATH.

POINT IS.....we need to debate and talk about facts rather than name calling and being pains.

AboveAlpha

 

A well trained Soldier knows how to keep his Rifle clean and operational.

Let me ask you.....would you prefer an AK-47 or AK-74 in a Desert Environment over an M-16 Varient or M4?

AboveAlpha

 

Google Translate works with that, but I didn't really see any relevance to the discussion about the A10, CAS, low altitude missile vulnerability, or MIG23vSU24 operations??

 

A-10's were always brought in after the USAF, USN. had achieved AIR SUPREMACY...not just air superiority.

At this point A-10's and Apache Long Bows could operate with impunity and since the A-10can take direct hits and keep flying...A-10 Pilot Survivability is excellent.

However....we are now deploying DRONES....High Altitude Bombers....Medium Altitude Attack Drones....and even Drones that open up and several hundred self propelled render themselves inert if they don't explode...CLUSTER MUNITIONS come out either for Antipersonal or Anti-Tank, BMP...etc.

The A-10 was...is a GREAT PLANE....but we have something better.

AboveAlpha

 

I agree with your post. I'm still musing over whether Two seater variants would make good support for CV22's and COIN, but it still seems like overkill for when SFG's might be working alone, else they'd already have sufficient support from other platforms, or the role might be better handled by a MEF.... depending on the circumstances. So I tend towards even that is too specialized to warrant its own airframe and instead its a good chance to borrow/use/train up the indigenous air force.

 

... but I'm probably stuck in that old CSAR mindset.

 

This is a result of political corruption and lobbying by the manufacturers. This is as big a threat to our national security as any enemy ever was, yet neither Party seems concerned enough about it to change it, nor is it a big concern for either Party's rank and file. It's just sad.

 

I'd rather call that going butthurt, and trying to switch to another topic, but whatever.

Oh, wow, you are truely an old fart, arn't you?

Havn't you heard about Google Translator....or any other online translator, for that matter? That is what I do, when I don't know an equivalent for a word in English.

 

The A-10's will most likely be Mothballed just like the F-117's as both are very lethal aircraft but both now have replacements that are better.

The F-117 was replaced by the F-22 and F-35.

The A-10...by a series of Drones.

Soon....there will no longer be Manned Fighter or Attack Pilots.

AboveAlpha

 

Believe it or not, you're actually right on that. The 6th generation fighter aircraft will not have pilots. The F-22 and F-35 are the last generation of fighter jets that will actually have pilots.

 

Oh...I am very aware of this.

The Navy is resistant to replacing the F-18 Superhornets with Fighter/Attack Drones...but it will happen as well.

AboveAlpha

 

Drones are fine until someone hacks or jams your comm link.

Assume all the big-league industrial powers can do that.

 

Islamic State fight could breathe new life into the A-10
Source: http://www.stripes.com/news/islamic-state-fight-could-breathe-new-life-into-the-a-10-1.305147

These folks are from the 163d FS and fly the A-10C...
nicknamed the "Blacksnakes." Most of their aircraft were built in the late 70s - early 80s; but the C variant is the most modernized.



I hope they go over and kick some ISIS ass.

 

Taxcutter says:
If the ROE aren't too stifling...they'll get some.

 

Here’s the professionals’ wish list.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/pilots-plan-tomorrows-a-10-833a05de6fae

A lot of requiring the ‘moon with a ring around it,’ but that’s the game you play at pre-specifications. You make the trade-offs later.

Things to keep:
Tight turning radius
GAU-8 gun
Durability
Low cost

Things to improve:
Engines (acceleration)
Multi-sensor and weapons capability

BTW, the A-10’s pedigree comes from the Stuka and the Sturmovik.

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2014/09/28/the_aircraft_that_inspired_the_a-10_107467.html

 

It is impossible to jam a revolving algorithmic encoded frequency....even if an ACROSS THE ENTIRE BANDWIDTH Jamming Signal is used.

AboveAlpha

 

How do you "encode" a frequency?

 

Encoded Frequency....the frequency is just the carrier wave....which changes in a revolving algorythmic manner.

Most likely 6500 Bit plus encrypted data are carried by this ever changing and revolving frequency.

AboveAlpha

 

Frequency agile radios have been around for a while now. And if you had enough power on tap to actually blanket the entire spectrum, you could jam them, too.

 

Theoretically yes...but highly unlikely in the extreme.

Jamming a signal across the entire bandwith requires an ENORMOUS amout of power and any attempted decription would fail.

Even if this was possible Next Generation Drones will switch to Fully Autonomous Mode.

Thus...no possibility of signal jamming.

AboveAlpha

 

"Full autonomous" mode might be A-OK for many missions. The recon drones of the Vietnam era were fully autonomous. Bombing stationary targets might be fully autonomous. Defensive or escort CAP might be autonomous. Most transport missions can be autonomous. Tankers can be autonomous.

But close air support - in the most fluid part of the theater of war - needs the judgment of a pair of eyes right there.

My problem with drones is that I know Murphy rules on the battlefield.

 

Second most fluid. The most fluid is air-to-air which is why it will never be done by a drone, unless someone is brilliant/crazy enough to put a no-sh*t AI in one.