RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 3:38:06 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the A-10 certainly still has a mission in today's assymetrical warfare world, just like the A-1 had one over South Vietnam 50 years ago.

Asymetrical is not the delimiter. You can have asymetrical environments where the ground opponent is well-supplied with MANPADS and A-10s will die in droves. The A-10 is useful now in primitive environments, yes. Over, Syria, for example, perhaps not so much.

The Spad is also an excellent analogy to the A-10, so thank you. We had them, so we used them, for awhile. We rapidly replaced them on carriers with jets as Vietnam heated up though. They needed extensive up-armoring to survive even against bullet-based AA environments. But most on-point is this--the production line was closed in 1957. We used them because we had them (A-10) We did not re-open the production line and start to build a 1940s platform again.

Of course there was an excellent reason to retire the SPAD (especially from Carriers). Being a reciprocating engine aircraft , it used 175 octane AVGAS. After the Oriskany,Forrestal and Enterprise fires , no one wanted the stuff around or onboard.

The A-10 doesn't have THAT particular problem.

Part of the problem with the A-10 is that while it's probably the best ground support aircraft in history, that's ALL it is. A "one-trick-pony". The USAF wants versatile , "one-plane-does-it-all" type aircraft. An F-16 is not as good as the A-10 in ground support. But the A-10 will never be a decent interceptor. Or all around fighter. Or "wild weasel". Or long range interdiction aircraft. Or light nuclear attack aircraft. The F-16 can do all of those jobs at least passably. For the Navy the F/A-18 does the same. It's not as good a fighter as the F-14, or a bomber as the A-6, or a tanker as the KA-6 or S-3b. But it can passably do all of those things on a easier to maintain, newer airframe.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 31

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 3:39:47 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the A-10 certainly still has a mission in today's assymetrical warfare world, just like the A-1 had one over South Vietnam 50 years ago.

I agree completely. Use them up. They're paid for. But you probably should not re-open the production line.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 32

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 3:49:04 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Of course there was an excellent reason to retire the SPAD (especially from Carriers). Being a reciprocating engine aircraft , it used 175 octane AVGAS. After the Oriskany,Forrestal and Enterprise fires , no one wanted the stuff around or onboard.

The Forrestal fire was in 1967. The conversion away from the Skyraider and to the Intruder began by 1962 on fleet carriers; they were going to be retained on the Essex-class. As the war heated up most of them were transferred to the Air Force which used them as long-loiter platforms in a support role for SAR, a role in which they excelled. Later the inventory was transferred to the South Vietnamese air forces. Still, 265 of them were lost in the war, almost 10% of the entire class production run.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 33

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 7:22:53 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: czert2

for bomber : well, it doesnt look much different from b-2. What willl be major differences ?
fighter : doesnt look good,� it lack tail - lack of tail is nice for stealth, but realy bad for manuveranility.
F-35: great disaster, it will be beter if canceled and money will be used for f-22. Since f35 cant match in combat curent/future planes of other states - mainly russia/china.

czert2, I know English isn't your first language, but you nearly coined a great military term. How about maneuveranihility?

_____________________________

(in reply to czert2)

Post #: 34

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 8:34:41 PM

czert2

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

czert2, I know English isn't your first language, but you nearly coined a great military term. How about maneuveranihility?

Oh, that hurts.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 35

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 9:31:32 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: czert2

for bomber : well, it doesnt look much different from b-2. What willl be major differences ?
fighter : doesnt look good,� it lack tail - lack of tail is nice for stealth, but realy bad for manuveranility.
F-35: great disaster, it will be beter if canceled and money will be used for f-22. Since f35 cant match in combat curent/future planes of other states - mainly russia/china.

czert2, I know English isn't your first language, but you nearly coined a great military term. How about maneuveranihility?

quote:

maneuveranihility

What? You don't know what maneuveranihility means? It's maneuverability over hills. Check Clauzwitz.

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 36

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 9:33:58 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
F-35 is a brand new revolutionary airplane.

Nope it's been surpassed. This is the future:

http://www.gizmag.com/tag/x-47b/

Love this quote from the piece:

quote:

No matter how I look at this, it still seems like science fiction � a combat aircraft without a pilot that is capable of flying itself, making its own decisions, recognizing and neutralizing threats, and taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier.

Tech development is moving faster and faster these days. Who knows what we'll have in another 10 years.

Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 5/13/2013 9:37:52 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 37

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 9:48:17 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I can almost smell the Skynet...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 38

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 9:52:42 PM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
F-35 is a brand new revolutionary airplane.

Nope it's been surpassed. This is the future:

http://www.gizmag.com/tag/x-47b/

Love this quote from the piece:

quote:

No matter how I look at this, it still seems like science fiction � a combat aircraft without a pilot that is capable of flying itself, making its own decisions, recognizing and neutralizing threats, and taking off and landing on an aircraft carrier.

Tech development is moving faster and faster these days. Who knows what we'll have in another 10 years.

Jim

I suppose you'all are too young to recall the Chevy Chase movie "The Sale of the Century"?

The problem I have with drones is that they are, well, DRONES. They may have the "stars and bars" painted on the side of the aircraft, but you've now combined combat aircraft with cyber warfare. To me the greatest irony would be to be bombed by your own aircraft, because some 18 year old punk is a cyber genius.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 39

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 10:52:57 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

I suspect the reason they are being developed with the ability to recognize target and kill threats on their own is to combat just such an attempted takeover. My guess is that all programming will occur in the hanger deck and once airborne there will be no way to take control of the aircraft from the ground.

Jim

Edit: The real advantage to these new robot aircraft (calling them drones is too primitive I think) is the fact that with no pilot, G-force limitations will be tied to what the airframe and internal components can handle (imagine a fighter doing 16-20 G maneuvers as routine). So overnight every other fighter in the sky becomes totally obsolete. I view this as a leap ahead in combat capabilities similar to how jet engines changed things at the end of WWII.

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 5/13/2013 11:11:54 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 40