Warbirds Thread

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
We've already been over this, @Aaron Fox, the A-10 was MORE SURVIVABLE while not being allowed to use their preferred attack profile than the F-16, which flew lower-threat missions and within its preferred attack profile. Constantly repeating a lie does not magically make it the truth.
It isn't a lie when the data supports it Sunhawk. Also, the F-111 killed far more tanks than the A-10 in its entire extended lifespan. When the only other aircraft (the Tornado) had greater losses (and, last I've checked, been tasked with the mission of killing Iraqi airfields)...

... stop sounding like a Sparky fanboy by repeating their lies.
The A-10 when flying at super low attitude and allowed to have unrestricted ground attack, is a beat
It is, but once anything more than a few AAGs shows up (even a few MANPADs), it starts to take losses. Even Iraqi levels of competence are deadly to an A-10. That is why the F-35 is going to replace the A-10, low and slow is a death sentence now.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
The original F-15A/B is a poor fighter-bomber with very limited air-to-ground capability. The F-15E Strike Eagle is one of the best multirole fighter-bombers ever developed, having superior range and payload over the vaunted F-111 while also having the ability to defend itself in air-to-air. This is literally what the Air Force developed and procured it for -- this idea that an aircraft specifically made as a strike fighter lacks air to ground capacity simply because it was developed from a specialized air superiority bird is ludicrous.

(Come to think of it, about as ludicrous as arguing that slapping the letter "F" on the Aardvark makes it a fighter-bomber, when it has absolutely no fighter characteristics at all. It's a fast tactical strike bomber, nothing more, nothing less.)
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
The original F-15A/B is a poor fighter-bomber with very limited air-to-ground capability. The F-15E is one of the best multirole fighter-bombers ever developed, having superior range and payload over the vaunted F-111 while also having the ability to defend itself in air-to-air.
Last I've checked, even the E variant wasn't as up-to-par. Then again, it might be because the USAF kept fucking with their CAS training program (i.e. kept trying to remove it entirely).
 

LordSunhawk

Das BOOT (literally)
Owner
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Aaron, your habit of completely ignoring evidence that contradicts your blithe statements is irritating. It's been demonstrated to you multiple times in multiple threads that when facing the exact same level of air defense threat the A-10 was more survivable than the F-16, and that was while required to operate in a manner contrary to the training doctrine that had been specifically developed to counter enemy air defenses.

Simply waving your hand frantically and intoning 'Sparky' as a magic word doesn't change this fact. The A-10, when used in the manner that it was designed to be used in, is an effective platform. It cannot do the F-16's job, nor can it do the F-35's job. But neither the F-16 nor the F-35 can do the A-10's job as well as it can.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
It should also be noted that while it is absolutely true that the F-111 scored tremendous numbers of "tank plinking" kills in the Gulf, it did so by operating in medium-altitude, short-range night strikes in airspace that was *completely cleared* of enemy air defense capability, and it was attacking tanks that were parked for the night but had the engines turned on to keep the crews warm.

It would not be able to duplicate that performance against active air defenses *or* against tanks that were properly hidden.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Aaron, your habit of completely ignoring evidence that contradicts your blithe statements is irritating. It's been demonstrated to you multiple times in multiple threads that when facing the exact same level of air defense threat the A-10 was more survivable than the F-16, and that was while required to operate in a manner contrary to the training doctrine that had been specifically developed to counter enemy air defenses.

Simply waving your hand frantically and intoning 'Sparky' as a magic word doesn't change this fact. The A-10, when used in the manner that it was designed to be used in, is an effective platform. It cannot do the F-16's job, nor can it do the F-35's job. But neither the F-16 nor the F-35 can do the A-10's job as well as it can.
That is very laughable Sunhawk. As I said before, the A-10 has shit energy, which is a requirement in not getting killed by SAMs. Going in low and slow isn't viable, not with how the game has changed. 30mm guns are devastating to aircraft, even previous generation MANPADs (i.e. the original Stinger and friends) tell those survivability features to go stuff themselves.

Hell, its defining feature, i.e. the gun, isn't even capable of damaging MBTs despite the A-10 fanboy club saying it can. The actual coloring book outright points this out with CAT-B T-62s!

When the Iraqis (i.e. something similar to what it was designed against) show that going low and slow is going to render your aircraft combat ineffective for a better part of a day at fucking best (to give you an idea, to replace an engine takes 6 hours, in combat that's basically forever, and that's before other damage as well which takes on even more time), then it is no longer viable.
It should also be noted that while it is absolutely true that the F-111 scored tremendous numbers of "tank plinking" kills in the Gulf, it did so by operating in medium-altitude, short-range night strikes in airspace that was *completely cleared* of enemy air defense capability, and it was attacking tanks that were parked for the night but had the engines turned on to keep the crews warm.

It would not be able to duplicate that performance against active air defenses *or* against tanks that were properly hidden.
Hence why I only see that future CAS aircraft are going to be stealth F-111 ordinance dump trucks, likely with Q-Radar and LIDAR sensors...
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
That is very laughable Sunhawk. As I said before, the A-10 has shit energy, which is a requirement in not getting killed by SAMs. Going in low and slow isn't viable, not with how the game has changed. 30mm guns are devastating to aircraft, even previous generation MANPADs (i.e. the original Stinger and friends) tell those survivability features to go stuff themselves.

Hell, its defining feature, i.e. the gun, isn't even capable of damaging MBTs despite the A-10 fanboy club saying it can. The actual coloring book outright points this out with CAT-B T-62s!

When the Iraqis (i.e. something similar to what it was designed against) show that going low and slow is going to render your aircraft combat ineffective for a better part of a day at fucking best (to give you an idea, to replace an engine takes 6 hours, in combat that's basically forever, and that's before other damage as well which takes on even more time), then it is no longer viable.

Hence why I only see that future CAS aircraft are going to be stealth F-111 ordinance dump trucks, likely with Q-Radar and LIDAR sensors...
And you have no idea how useful a low flying aircraft are against Radar and the like. No matter how good the radar is, most SAM for instance, are horrible at low flying aircraft at ground level. AAA sucks, even with EW Radar, because it makes it harder to acquire and lock on.
Also, how useful is a MANPAD when you are getting shot at?
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
And you have no idea how useful a low flying aircraft are against Radar and the like. No matter how good the radar is, most SAM for instance, are horrible at low flying aircraft at ground level. AAA sucks, even with EW Radar, because it makes it harder to acquire and lock on.
Also, how useful is a MANPAD when you are getting shot at?
Actually, people keep forgetting that radar has improved to fight low-flying aircraft and such radars have been implemented (last I've heard, you can't use your usual 'low and slow' altitudes to fly underneath this sort of radar), they're just not advertised as often as things like Q-Radar. If not for low-flying aircraft then for sea-skimmer AShMs.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Sea-skimmers fly over sea which is is a lot more open than most ground locations, where ground clutter like hills limits the effectiveness of radars at low level
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Actually, people keep forgetting that radar has improved to fight low-flying aircraft and such radars have been implemented (last I've heard, you can't use your usual 'low and slow' altitudes to fly underneath this sort of radar), they're just not advertised as often as things like Q-Radar. If not for low-flying aircraft then for sea-skimmer AShMs.
You do know I work in this field right?
Ground surveillance radars are used and they still work best in mountains or hilly areas. Where A10 works best
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
Sea-skimmers fly over sea which is is a lot more open than most ground locations, where ground clutter like hills limits the effectiveness of radars at low level
Still, not only do they exist, they're rather prolific (or the Sgt. York wouldn't even have that capability, and please note that this was a 1970s design). Radars -and the computers that use them- have vastly improved in that department, and it is only going to get worse.
You do know I work in this field right?
Ground surveillance radars are used and they still work best in mountains or hilly areas. Where A10 works best
Yeah, as part of SIGINT and its family. I have to read this sort of stuff for my future-history setting, and it isn't looking good for 'low and slow' aircraft.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Still, not only do they exist, they're rather prolific (or the Sgt. York wouldn't even have that capability, and please note that this was a 1970s design). Radars -and the computers that use them- have vastly improved in that department, and it is only going to get worse.

Yeah, as part of SIGINT and its family. I have to read this sort of stuff for my future-history setting, and it isn't looking good for 'low and slow' aircraft.
I also know how it works and how useful it is, on a level you don't...
Hills and mountains make Anti Air that much more difficult
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
On paper, the F-111 had a payload of 31,000 lbs versus only 23,000 lbs for a Strike Eagle. However, this is an overly simplistic comparison because the primary limitation in practice for both aircraft is how many *hardpoints* they have available.

The F-111's practical payload is four air-to-ground weapons, or six without the Pave Tack pod, but in that case it loses the key ability to self-designate. The *only* weapon the 111 can carry that a Strike Eagle cannot is the SRAM nuclear missile, and that was specifically limited to the FB-111A.

The Strike Eagle's practical payload is much more variable and flexible since the CFT weapon rails can carry anywhere between one and six weapons each depending on their size and weight, and then there's the centerline and wing pylons. In practice, the typical loadout would be four or five precision guided air to ground weapons, two drop tanks, a targeting pod, and four air to air missiles for self defense. And of course, the Strike Eagle is compatible with the full range of modern PGMs, versus the F-111 being limited to LGBs since no version of it had the wiring to be compatible with weapons requiring pre-launch programming.

In other words, the claim that the F-15E doesn't match up is completely BS. The only area the F-111 comes ahead is unrefuelled range, and that's honestly not a big deal when you have the aerial tanking capability that the USAF does.
 

Vargas Fan

Head over heels in love :)
The one major thing I have against the F-111 is that it played a part (not the sole part by any means) of getting the TSR 2 cancelled. I believe Lord Louis Mountbatten was against the TSR 2 and lobbied to have it cancelled in favour of a variant of the F-111 that never appeared.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
The one major thing I have against the F-111 is that it played a part (not the sole part by any means) of getting the TSR 2 cancelled. I believe Lord Louis Mountbatten was against the TSR 2 and lobbied to have it cancelled in favour of a variant of the F-111 that never appeared.
TSR 2 is a case of British military procurement being itself, it would be very unfair to blame F-111 for the clusterfuck. Mountbatten's lobbying probably has more to do with being a stepping stone, to getting entire project cancelled in favour of naval programs.
 

Vargas Fan

Head over heels in love :)
TSR 2 is a case of British military procurement being itself, it would be very unfair to blame F-111 for the clusterfuck. Mountbatten's lobbying probably has more to do with being a stepping stone, to getting entire project cancelled in favour of naval programs.

Hence why I said it was only a part, and if anything it was probably an excuse. Mountbatten should not have had the influence he did.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Your delusions are of no concern to me, go back to the glue factory if you want to feel smart on aircraft rankings.
I mean....Everything the USAF and Navy has is better then anything the RAF has.
Looking at the picture, one of those is outdated by multiplemodern US Aurcraft.
One of those I am guessing is a Hurricane? Decent, outdated by end of war, if Spitfire then was still not the best as the US lte war aircraft.
And World War 1 you have a point
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top