lol 180 rounds from a GAU-12? What is that like 5 seconds worth?
When firing they have a mode where the actual weapon wont fire unless its laser targets the target. So that five seconds of fire can be 2-5 planes possibly? At least that was the way it was explained to me.
Then why the 'F' designation and not 'B?'
Politicians and the idiot public thinking it was possible.
Past examples of multirole fighters all started out as dedicated fighter aircraft with very limited ground attack, that had over time were adapted and modified for more and more advanced ground attack munitions and capabilities. The F-16 and F-15 come to mind here. The cost of that development came later on, and wasn't lumped into the initial aircraft development, so we got great aircraft for fighter duties, and then modified for fast ground strike.
Also, in the past, ground attack meant dumb iron bombs, rocket pods, and using internal guns which are all relatively cheap munitions that don't require anything more than a change of mode on the gunsight for aiming or just practice. While sensored munitions are less wasteful in terms of success, it means more cost per weapon used and target killed, but it comes back down to success/cost ratio and the cost of procuring the sensors (like the SNIPER pod) or integrating such systems into the aircraft.
i have 0 issues with a multi-role strike fighter. that's what the F35 is. people who moan about it not being an air superiority fighter are sorely mistaken - that's the F22.
but anyone in the upper ranks of the pentagon should have known that building something for the air force, marines, and navy would have drastically different requirements for each application. the process should have been separate bids for different aircraft. hopefully this serves as a learning tool the next time around.
i have 0 issues with a multi-role strike fighter. that's what the F35 is. people who moan about it not being an air superiority fighter are sorely mistaken - that's the F22.
but anyone in the upper ranks of the pentagon should have known that building something for the air force, marines, and navy would have drastically different requirements for each application. the process should have been separate bids for different aircraft. hopefully this serves as a learning tool the next time around.
After the Phantom and Aardvark; they should have known better.
Something for everyone does not make the "best of breed"
Those A-10s are badass. I saw a few helmet cam videos from Afghanistan recently where troops were told to evacuate an area for an A-10 to clear an area. Hearing the gun fire is pretty scary if you're on the ground...skip to 53 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9soy-QerhE
LOL, yeah believe that if you're the opposing air force. Basically, the F-ANYTHING the US put up in the sky can fly up, fire its missiles, land, the pilots then go get some beers, before the other airplanes know what hit them.
A10 is not fast nor sexy. USAF leadership does not want to be on call to the groundFact. I've encountered them several times in my Army career. They are loud and I agree with other observations that describe the sound as "hell ripping open the sky".
The first time I heard them was at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. We were out on a field exercise in the woods and heard that awful noise. We'd been warned about wild boars and that was our first thought, but everyone only had blank ammo so it was gonna be run or be a knife fight with a wild boar. Turned out to be A-10s doing strafing runs a few miles away on a range.
The second time I heard them was in Afghanistan. We took indirect fire (mortar rounds) from a mountain side about 10 miles away from base. Next thing some A-10s came flying in and unleashed on that mountain side for several minutes.
Awesome, awesome weapons system. Just read a report where GAO threw the bullshit card on the Air Force's analysis on getting rid of them. Sounds like the A-10 might be sticking around. I've also heard the Army was making a case to bring them back into the Army too. That's probably a pipe dream though.
A10 is not fast nor sexy. USAF leadership does not want to be on call to the ground
The best thing would be to turn over the A10 to the Army.
But that would entail fixed wing to recreate the Army Air Corp.
That was wiped out 70 years ago.
A10 is not fast nor sexy. USAF leadership does not want to be on call to the ground
The best thing would be to turn over the A10 to the Army.
But that would entail fixed wing operations that would recreate the Army Air Corp.
That was wiped out 70 years ago.
The Marines have always had a seperate Air Wing
The Army has Apaches etc for things like that, the should just be reassigned there.
They are a similar role, lump em in with the choppers.
Problem solved, just make a ground attack category.
From the USAF pokitical side, the Marines are part of the Navy. The Navy always has had planes.
The Air Force was the Army spun off
Those A-10s are badass. I saw a few helmet cam videos from Afghanistan recently where troops were told to evacuate an area for an A-10 to clear an area. Hearing the gun fire is pretty scary if you're on the ground...skip to 53 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9soy-QerhE
Those A-10s are badass. I saw a few helmet cam videos from Afghanistan recently where troops were told to evacuate an area for an A-10 to clear an area. Hearing the gun fire is pretty scary if you're on the ground...skip to 53 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9soy-QerhE
I think I'd shit my pants if I wasn't expecting it.
You wouldn't have time to shit your pants until your dead. LOL
Then why the 'F' designation and not 'B?'
I know the computer in the F-22 limits what the pilot can do, and I have always thought perhaps if they make the F-22 pilotless then the aircraft will be even more of a dog fighting challenge. Now I wonder what would happen if the F-35 was pilotless?
Most modern fighters have flight control limiters to prevent over-g and too high angle of attack. G-limits are not just for black out prevention, but to prevent structural failure, especially when laden with munitions on the wings.
F-117
The F-35 was not intended to be a good dogfighter.
There would be little expectation that it would match up well against a good dogfighter.
I'm not sure that the loss to an F-16 in a dogfight means anything at all, except for a catchy headline.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/f35/f35_schem_09.jpgThe F-35 doesn't carry munitions on its wings.
I heard they were going to give the F-117A the B designator, but no one wants to fly a bomber so they they gave it an F.