Search results

The F35 cannot exist without a permissive environment either. The exists no military unit that can act alone. Powerful Anti-air emplacements are just like artillery emplacements. Threats that need to be dealt with using strategy and tactics. Are you actually going to make productive...

We've also learned to do interesting things with Kevlar that lend themselves to making light weight defenses. Those types of armor don't prevent damage, but they can reduce its effect. The goal is never to be immune to damage, but to increase the amount of time it takes to create a kill or...

Didn't you know, combnined arms doctorine does not exist, and if a plane is not a strike fighter that can fly in the first wave of combat the bird does not belong in the sky.

The gun is reliable in a way that missiles will never be. The gun is flexible, and has more endurance. It will always be able to deal with the enemy leaving your plans in shambles. The cult of the missile has probably killed more US soldiers in Vietnam than enemy tactics.

No, that is a completely different role. That's like saying that an MLRS is a replacement for an MBT. Combined arms doctrine has always won out for a reason. The A-10 is not a bomber; it is not a strike fighter. It cannot be replaced by a bomber or a strike fighter. It is a fixed wing gunship.

Even against a peer, if you use only missiles, while the enemy also uses gun, you will have the worse logistics. PGMs need lots of rare earth elements and exotic metals you need to import.

I'm talking about human reactions to combat. You are talking about theoretical attrition in an environment that only exists in the cult of the missile. I'm half expecting you to argue that we should take the guns out of strike fighters to save on the dead weight.

Also when you fire pinpoint missile strikes, they other guys on the red team have reason to believe that you shot your load. With a gun attack, you might be coming back for another pass. Morale is important, there is rarely a war that has been won by attrition.

No they are not. Current drone designs are replacing strike-fighters on over-watch. The A-10 is designed for low altitude approaches, flying under the radar in the original meaning of the term, and engaging targets in gunfire.

That design seems to be a bit lazy, just strapping an engine on the existing plane. A modern air-frame for an A-10 replacement would have a blockier body with internal engines for stealth, though the engines will still be above the wings for low altitude stealth features. It would keep the...

We've also long ago managed to baffling engines so that they can be quiet on a low altitude flyby. The B-2 is an old bird now and I'm sure we can make a smaller plane even quieter. With manpads as your main threat, sight and sound are just as if not more important than radar. If a grunt has to...

Also flight nape of earth can make the horizon line very close. If you have computer assistance for flight nape of earth, technology I'd be surprised if it doesn't already exist, you can combine a speed and short viable engagement ranges to drastically minimize available engagement times. Low...

The goal of well designed armor is never to protect everything, it is to protect enough. Several existing strike fighters have an aerodynamic fusalauge and enoguh control surfaces to be able to make a safe landing minus a full wing. That is not a valid, or even relevant argument. We are talking...

Do you think something like the Trophy anti-missile system would be worth the weight? The mission profile puts it well within line of sight targetting, passive and active stealth can only do so much at that point.

What would a proper A-10 replacement look like? We know what it is not: A strike fighter. The A-10 is a fixed wing gunship. Its main armament is a high-powered auto-cannon supplemented by bomb munitions. The bird is very good at here job, which isn't just destroying armored vehicles but also...