U.S. blocks Turkey's F-35 equipment over S-400 deal with Russia

Jredbaron96 said:

:roll:

You're inventing justifications to explain a simple reality, that a slow moving, low flying fixed wing gunships is vulnerable to modern air defense systems.

Click to expand...

No actually what you are doing is trying to shift the goalposts away from cas for cas aircraft, they were designed to perform one function very well and they do just that. The entire nature of cas requires aircraft to be slow, what you are demanding is what the airforce is, that cas aircraft be able to do everything but cas.

There never was a justification for needing cas to be an aircraft to attack ground positions deep within enemy territory, numerous aircraft before and after the a-10 filled that role, the a-10 was designed from the getgo to be a cas aircraft to assist ground troops.

Jredbaron96 said:

So once again, you made a claim that the Afghans shot down a Soviet helicopter with a musket and still have no evidence to back it up. And now you're trying to back track on it as if you weren't really making that point in the first place.

Click to expand...

If you like I can pull a magic crystall ball out and bring the afghans back from the dead to tstify, however this is unlikely.

My point being they used everything at their disposal including muskets to combat the soviets, and they were known quite well for taking out soviet helicopters with antique gear by exploiting obvious vulnerabilities in those aircraft.

Now I guess if you are demanding to the level of video proof you might as well demand video proof of the romans conquest of europe as well, since it had about the same video coverage as the muhajadeen had in afghanistan.

beerftw said:

I believe it literally does cover it since they used them as offensive weapons that rolled with their battle formations.

Click to expand...

The S-75 was not used in air defense platoons by Soviet tactical formations.

beerftw said:

If you like I can pull a magic crystall ball out and bring the afghans back from the dead to tstify, however this is unlikely.

My point being they used everything at their disposal including muskets to combat the soviets, and they were known quite well for taking out soviet helicopters with antique gear by exploiting obvious vulnerabilities in those aircraft.

Now I guess if you are demanding to the level of video proof you might as well demand video proof of the romans conquest of europe as well, since it had about the same video coverage as the muhajadeen had in afghanistan.

Click to expand...

Once again, you made a claim and you have no evidence to back it up.

beerftw said:

No actually what you are doing is trying to shift the goalposts away from cas for cas aircraft, they were designed to perform one function very well and they do just that. The entire nature of cas requires aircraft to be slow, what you are demanding is what the airforce is, that cas aircraft be able to do everything but cas.

There never was a justification for needing cas to be an aircraft to attack ground positions deep within enemy territory, numerous aircraft before and after the a-10 filled that role, the a-10 was designed from the getgo to be a cas aircraft to assist ground troops.

Click to expand...

:roll:

The actual military force that used the A-10 in combat openly stated what their weaknesses were, but you continued to insist they were wrong and don't know what they're talking about. Given your claims in this thread thus far, it's clear you don't really have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Jredbaron96 said:

The A-10 got withdrawn from attacking Republican Guard formations during the Gulf War and had to be replaced by F-16s. Try again.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure the circumstances there.

The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces.[10] A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon. The first of these was shot down by Captain Robert Swain over Kuwait on 6 February 1991 for the A-10's first air-to-air victory.[93][94] Four A-10s were shot down during the war, all by surface-to-air missiles. Another two battle-damaged A-10s and OA-10As returned to base but were written off, some sustaining additional damage in crash landings.[95][96] The A-10 had a mission capable rate of 95.7 percent, flew 8,100 sorties, and launched 90 percent of the AGM-65 Maverick missiles fired in the conflict.[97] Shortly after the Gulf War, the Air Force abandoned the idea of replacing the A-10 with a close air support version of the F-16.[98]

Click to expand...

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia

Also:

However, critics have said that replacing the A-10 with the F-35 would be a "giant leap backwards" given the A-10's performance and the F-35's high costs.[121] In 2012, the Air Force considered the F-35B STOVL variant as a replacement CAS aircraft, but concluded that the aircraft could not generate sufficient sorties.[122] In August 2013, Congress and the Air Force examined various proposals, including the F-35 and the MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle filling the A-10's role. Proponents state that the A-10's armor and cannon are superior to aircraft such as the F-35 for ground attack, that guided munitions other planes rely upon could be jammed, and that ground commanders frequently request A-10 support.[108]

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

I'm not sure the circumstances there.

Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia

Also:

Click to expand...

"The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard."

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/1991/June 1991/0691horner.aspx

Jredbaron96 said:

"The other problem is that the A-10 is vulnerable to hits because its speed is limited. It's a function of thrust, it's not a function of anything else. We had a lot of A-10s take a lot of ground fire hits. Quite frankly, we pulled the A-10s back from going up around the Republican Guard and kept them on Iraq's [less formidable] front-line units. That's line if you have a force that allows you to do that. In this case, we had F-16s to go after the Republican Guard."

Air Force Magazine

Click to expand...

Yeah. A-10 is for secure airspace only. If it's taking SAMs, it's not in secure airspace. Only 4 were shot down, total, all SAMs.

I've seen them up close and personal in 'laser tag' training. They're terrifying.

ecofarm said:

Yeah. A-10 is for secure airspace only. If it's taking SAMs, it's not in secure airspace. Only 4 were shot down, total, all SAMs.

I've seen them up close and personal in 'laser tag' training. They're terrifying.

Click to expand...

I would amend that a bit.

The purpose of the design of the A-10 must be taken into consideration. It was designed as a "tank buster", that would be used in the rougher and more varied terrain of Europe. It was never designed as an actual "CAS aircraft", and certainly not as the aircraft to be sent out to eliminate SAM sites.

Especially in the flat and wide open terrain of the Middle East.

In Europe, the intent was that the A-10 would be operating at the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area - in other words where the fighting takes place). They would loiter behind friendly lines until called, then rush in and eliminate an enemy pocket before withdrawing back to safety. And in flying so low and slow it could approach the enemy and "pop up " from behind a hill and do it's attack, then withdraw before they even realized they were under attack.

The problem much of our equipment has is that it was designed with a completely different battle in mind. For 50 years our equipment was primarily designed with the idea of a conflict in Europe with the Warsaw Pact. And some other things were thrown in, like the experience from the mountains and cold of Korea, and the jungles of Vietnam.

But other than a few engagements in North Africa in the start of WWII, we have not really been involved much in fighting in a desert environment since the most advanced tools to do so were a Sharps reloading rifle and a horse. And as such we have been constantly changing our tactics and strategies in order to compensate for the equipment that we do have.

Jredbaron96 said:

:roll:

The actual military force that used the A-10 in combat openly stated what their weaknesses were, but you continued to insist they were wrong and don't know what they're talking about. Given your claims in this thread thus far, it's clear you don't really have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Their weaknesses and strengths were always static, but you insist upon calling an aircraft bad by defining a mission you knew very well it was never designed for as a justification to remove it from a mission it actually was designed for.

Jredbaron96 said:

The S-75 was not used in air defense platoons by Soviet tactical formations.

Click to expand...

The soviets did not but other nations did especially arab nations, and the s-75 was in use in vietnam and the middle east before the a-10. The only soviet system unable to be used as an offensive system at the time was the s-25 which was designed purely as a defensive system to protect moscow and exports are near non existent of that system and mobile systems made for the s-25 still remained near russian assets at home rather than battlefields.

beerftw said:

Their weaknesses and strengths were always static, but you insist upon calling an aircraft bad by defining a mission you knew very well it was never designed for as a justification to remove it from a mission it actually was designed for.

Click to expand...

:roll:

No, the Air Force clearly defined the problem was a matter of the aircraft's design and how it flew. You're just making **** up to try to excuse it.

beerftw said:

The soviets did not but other nations did especially arab nations, and the s-75 was in use in vietnam and the middle east before the a-10. The only soviet system unable to be used as an offensive system at the time was the s-25 which was designed purely as a defensive system to protect moscow and exports are near non existent of that system and mobile systems made for the s-25 still remained near russian assets at home rather than battlefields.

Click to expand...

Not only does this not prove your point, it's also entirely irrelevant.

What is with people in the military forum always trying to go off on tangents as if they're just trying to show off how much they know?

And lastly, the Arab militaries, riddled with incompetence as they were, are hardly a good metric to use for anything.

Jredbaron96 said:

Not only does this not prove your point, it's also entirely irrelevant.

What is with people in the military forum always trying to go off on tangents as if they're just trying to show off how much they know?

And lastly, the Arab militaries, riddled with incompetence as they were, are hardly a good metric to use for anything.

Click to expand...

The arab militaries were incompetent, however it destroys the notion they were defensive until after the a-10 was produced. Anti air systems have not only been used offensively but have done so as long as air defenses have existed which goes back to anti aircraft guns .

Jredbaron96 said:

:roll:

No, the Air Force clearly defined the problem was a matter of the aircraft's design and how it flew. You're just making **** up to try to excuse it.

Click to expand...

The air force defined problem does not matter, as they defined cas as a problem since the army and air force split up, and the bigwigs there do not care for ground troops but have fought tooth and nail to prevent the army from taking over the cas role they never wanted to fill.


Those same airforce bigwigs failed over and over again, the cas program today though is not only still going despite decades of the airforce trying to end it over their own personal reasons rather than national security interests, but now the a-10 retirement is on indefinate hold and the govt is scoping a replacement for dedicated cas.


I will put it this way, the air force refused to hold a competition against the a-10 with the f-35 unless the rules were geared in favor of the f-35, the entire recent cas showdown had almost zero to do with cas, and it is really bad when you need to rig a test for cas aircraft to focus almost entirely on non cas roles as if their chosen successor would lose to a dedicated cas. It is like vietnam all over again where they thought the f-4 would be the one size fits all aircraft only to be slapped by reality, or in desert storm where they planned to retire it only to find out how badass the jet is.


And please quit using speed as a metric for cas, cas i no way implies speed, it's entire role involves flying low and slow to accurately aid troops in a contested fight on the ground, that was it's literal purpose and the purpose of cas, without proper visual identification from a low and slow aircraft it becomes guesswork, and dropping bombs from high altitude based off a call for cas can easily kill just as many of your own men as the enemy, which is why in cas the aircraft used depends on the situation present not on a how fast or high it can fly metric.

beerftw said:

The arab militaries were incompetent, however it destroys the notion they were defensive until after the a-10 was produced. Anti air systems have not only been used offensively but have done so as long as air defenses have existed which goes back to anti aircraft guns .

Click to expand...

Not only was that not my point, that's not even true.

beerftw said:

The air force defined problem does not matter...

Click to expand...

Yeah okay, the people actually flying the plane have no input on the matter. :roll:

beerftw said:

The arab militaries were incompetent, however it destroys the notion they were defensive until after the a-10 was produced. Anti air systems have not only been used offensively but have done so as long as air defenses have existed which goes back to anti aircraft guns .

Click to expand...

All Air Defense systems are defensive in nature, and that goes all the way back to when it was first created, as an off-shoot of the Coastal Defense Artillery Corps.

And that is simply because you really can't bring the guns to the target, you have to wait for the target to come to the guns. Or missiles, or whatever the system uses to knock down their foe.

And yes, we have tried putting our ADA right behind the forward units, but it still relies upon the airplane coming to the weapon, the weapon does not go off into a forward position to go hunting the targets. Even the cases where Air Defense weapons were used in other ways "The Bridge at Remaggan, the use of the Vulcan in base support in Vietnam) it still relied upon the enemy coming to the gun, not the gun going out looking for the enemy.

So yes, they have always been used defensively. The only possible exception is MANPAD.

Oozlefinch said:

All Air Defense systems are defensive in nature, and that goes all the way back to when it was first created, as an off-shoot of the Coastal Defense Artillery Corps.

And that is simply because you really can't bring the guns to the target, you have to wait for the target to come to the guns. Or missiles, or whatever the system uses to knock down their foe.

And yes, we have tried putting our ADA right behind the forward units, but it still relies upon the airplane coming to the weapon, the weapon does not go off into a forward position to go hunting the targets. Even the cases where Air Defense weapons were used in other ways "The Bridge at Remaggan, the use of the Vulcan in base support in Vietnam) it still relied upon the enemy coming to the gun, not the gun going out looking for the enemy.

So yes, they have always been used defensively. The only possible exception is MANPAD.

Click to expand...

Technichally you would be right those systems are all defensive, even what is claimed as tactical, however their offensive nature is bringing them to the fight with ground troops armor etc moving forward rather than staying behind as purely defensive.. You would be right that even offensive use of air defehnse systems require the enemy to move within their range in the first place also making them defensive.

Jredbaron96 said:

Yeah okay, the people actually flying the plane have no input on the matter. :roll:

Click to expand...

The air force is not the one flying the plane, the pilots of the air force are. The air force itself has a record of being horribly wrong for decades straight on such affairs, and keeps repeating the same failed strategies. They tried to replace the a-1 with the f-4, they tried to replace the a-10 with everything under the sun, when it came time to use assets though the a-10 proved every time to be irreplaceable by anything the airforce offered. The airforce itself has tried to end cas anything, while at the same time trying to block the army from doing cas as the army taking it over would cut their funding. The marines are not part of that nor are the navy so both can use cas independant of the airforce.

Jredbaron96 said:

Not only was that not my point, that's not even true.

Click to expand...

If the system was defensive it could not be used offensively, since systems were used as part of offenses predating the a-10, yes it does destroy your notion. The a-10 was designed to replace the a-1 for cas, the a-1 despite being a piston pounder was loved by ground troops in vietnam and hated by the airforce, while the airforce loved the f-4 which ground troops hated as their form of cas was equally as deadly to friendly troops as it was to enemy troops.


Keep in mind the a-1 was never designed to be cas, it just happened to fill the role perfectly, and despite being a super slow piston pounder it even managed to win dogfights against 2 migs. Since vietnam the air force had decided dogfighting was dead only to be proven wring and try to ressurect the notion numerous times, they have also tried to kill cas despite any input from ground troops which shows the air force command cares not about ground troops since the entire role of cas is to support ground troops, not to attack positions ahead of ground troops.

beerftw said:

The air force is not the one flying the plane, the pilots of the air force are. The air force itself has a record of being horribly wrong for decades straight on such affairs, and keeps repeating the same failed strategies. They tried to replace the a-1 with the f-4, they tried to replace the a-10 with everything under the sun, when it came time to use assets though the a-10 proved every time to be irreplaceable by anything the airforce offered. The airforce itself has tried to end cas anything, while at the same time trying to block the army from doing cas as the army taking it over would cut their funding. The marines are not part of that nor are the navy so both can use cas independant of the airforce.

Click to expand...

"So what if the Air Force found out that the A-10 was vulnerable to ground fire and too slow and old to avoid it? I still say it's good!"

beerftw said:

If the system was defensive it could not be used offensively, since systems were used as part of offenses predating the a-10.

Click to expand...

I don't think you even understand what you're arguing anymore

Jredbaron96 said:

"So what if the Air Force found out that the A-10 was vulnerable to ground fire and too slow and old to avoid it? I still say it's good!"

Click to expand...

All aircraft performing cas is vulnerable to groundfire, this is always the case, it is the literal purpose of cas to be close and personal to support ground troops directly in a dynamic environment. Without being close and personal with the pilots having visual awareness of the battlefield it is nothing more than ground attack.

If the requirement is that aircraft fly fast and high in order to conduct cas then you might as well end cas altogether and tell ground troops the airforce will not support them. The a-10 was intentionally made slow and designed to fly low, it is not some feature of it being too old they are newer than many aircraft still in use today like the f-15 and f-16. They were purpose built for cas, being heavily armored to withstand ground fire, extremely redundant in control systems and aerodynamics, and even their engines are spaced apart and up high to both prevent a single attack from taking out both engines as well as limiting the possibility of damage from foriegn object debris.

The whole thing was designed from the ground up to do the task it was assigned,l the problem is people like you who try and redefine what cas should be to justify removing an aircraft, rather than using an aircraft designed for the task you want to redesign to the task to fit a different aircraft.

Jredbaron96 said:

I don't think you even understand what you're arguing anymore

Click to expand...

I quite well do I think you are trying to play the tactical word game to redefine offensive as you please since such defense systems were used offensively since their creation going back to anti aircraft guns.