Will Putin invade ?

[Wellytrack]

Official policy is that the F35 takes over from the Hog & the reality is that Apaches and drones are able to cover the role whilst being more flexible so I doubt we'll see a true replacement.

Wouldn’t be convinced about the F35.

 

[TheTallGuy]

Wouldn’t be convinced about the F35.

I'm not, but the powers that be have decided to try and make one bird that does everything... with the inevitable result. Unfortunately they've splurged so much money on it that they can't afford to admit that it's a failure.

 

[Wellytrack]

 

[The Seeker]

Great video, next episode ELMS

 

[Muck Spreader]

You have to wonder at the accuracy of some US munitions and control systems as well as Russian. During the Gulf war a total of 20 Bradleys were lost—three by enemy fire and 17 due to friendly fire incidents; another 12 were damaged.

 

[ollie989898]

Official policy is that the F35 takes over from the Hog & the reality is that Apaches and drones are able to cover the role whilst being more flexible so I doubt we'll see a true replacement.

F35 (and many other conventional fighters) can do the A10 thing effectively. The truth is the A-10 was designed in the Cold war to smash Soviet armoured columns- it would launch mavericks at long range and then use the gun for anything softer that was left, APCs, trucks, that kind of thing. The A10 is woefully short of thrust because it uses some old engines and although it has a lot of external hardpoints it doesn't have that huge a bomb load- 16,000lbs (vs 22,000lb for the F35).

In reality the nature of air support has changed also. In Afghanistan the majority of attacks were carried out at medium altitude, basically because it was safer for the aircraft and let the pilot linger for longer periods of time. The majority of modern aircraft also have sensors that can spot individual personnel from 25,000 feet anyway so low level attacks are not just not needed and gives you greater warning if a SAM is fired at you. The use of a gun has also become pretty academic. Whilst they look cool from the ground, the reality is that a 20mm cannon, 25mm cannon or 30mm cannon are all as effective at killing infantry and pick up trucks and none can really kill a modern tank. They are also hazardous to use because of the risk of ricocheting rounds hitting the ground and then hitting the aircraft as it flies by.

There is also value in having aircraft with more than one aircrew aboard- as Afghanistan and Iraq proved, the larger aircraft could remain on station for a long time with tanker support and get to anywhere very rapidly with their high speed sprints. The pilot could fly the plane whilst the other crew member(s) used their on board sensors to survey the ground below. From medium to high altitudes they were at zero risk of small arms fire and had no drop off in effectiveness because of the accuracy of modern weapons. Crucially, infantry could also designate targets for aircraft above with hand held laser designators or just radioing them in.

Where the A10 (and to some extent the Apache) did score highly was that they were willing to come to low level and eyeball targets which must have done wonders for the morale of friendly forces in the area. But this is not a viable tactic against a determined enemy equipped with manpads or air defence weapons. This same stunt, in the Ukraine, this will get you killed as many videos are now demonstrating. At low level, slow flying jets and helicopters are bread and butter for even simple surface to air weapons. They have neither speed nor altitude to help them. In Iraq, F16s and the like were dodging SAMs very effectively as they have the speed and performance to do so but you do need altitude to give you sufficient warning.

The truth is that the A10 would never survive for long in a contested air space. Apache was designed to hover and hide in the weeds but helicopters are expensive to operate, slow and hard on fuel. They also have a puny weapons load compared to jets.

 

[ollie989898]

You have to wonder at the accuracy of some US munitions and control systems as well as Russian. During the Gulf war a total of 20 Bradleys were lost—three by enemy fire and 17 due to friendly fire incidents; another 12 were damaged.

At least two warriors were hit by US airpower from memory as well- simple target misidentification I think.

The Americans also tend to destroy damaged equipment that they cannot recover. This happened a few times to various vehicles. They will destroy them deliberately to avoid the enemy recovering any sensitive equipment on board. The British seem less keen to do this. I understand the majority of Abrams tanks the Americans lost in recent times have been collected and sent back to the USA to be remanufactured to as new condition. There was a TV episode about it:

 

[TheTallGuy]

F35 (and many other conventional fighters) can do the A10 thing effectively. The truth is the A-10 was designed in the Cold war to smash Soviet armoured columns- it would launch mavericks at long range and then use the gun for anything softer that was left, APCs, trucks, that kind of thing. The A10 is woefully short of thrust because it uses some old engines and although it has a lot of external hardpoints it doesn't have that huge a bomb load- 16,000lbs (vs 22,000lb for the F35).

In reality the nature of air support has changed also. In Afghanistan the majority of attacks were carried out at medium altitude, basically because it was safer for the aircraft and let the pilot linger for longer periods of time. The majority of modern aircraft also have sensors that can spot individual personnel from 25,000 feet anyway so low level attacks are not just not needed and gives you greater warning if a SAM is fired at you. The use of a gun has also become pretty academic. Whilst they look cool from the ground, the reality is that a 20mm cannon, 25mm cannon or 30mm cannon are all as effective at killing infantry and pick up trucks and none can really kill a modern tank. They are also hazardous to use because of the risk of ricocheting rounds hitting the ground and then hitting the aircraft as it flies by.

There is also value in having aircraft with more than one aircrew aboard- as Afghanistan and Iraq proved, the larger aircraft could remain on station for a long time with tanker support and get to anywhere very rapidly with their high speed sprints. The pilot could fly the plane whilst the other crew member(s) used their on board sensors to survey the ground below. From medium to high altitudes they were at zero risk of small arms fire and had no drop off in effectiveness because of the accuracy of modern weapons. Crucially, infantry could also designate targets for aircraft above with hand held laser designators or just radioing them in.

Where the A10 (and to some extent the Apache) did score highly was that they were willing to come to low level and eyeball targets which must have done wonders for the morale of friendly forces in the area. But this is not a viable tactic against a determined enemy equipped with manpads or air defence weapons. This same stunt, in the Ukraine, this will get you killed as many videos are now demonstrating. At low level, slow flying jets and helicopters are bread and butter for even simple surface to air weapons. They have neither speed nor altitude to help them. In Iraq, F16s and the like were dodging SAMs very effectively as they have the speed and performance to do so but you do need altitude to give you sufficient warning.

The truth is that the A10 would never survive for long in a contested air space. Apache was designed to hover and hide in the weeds but helicopters are expensive to operate, slow and hard on fuel. They also have a puny weapons load compared to jets.

The gun on the A10 was never intended as a tank buster, but to attack the light armour and support units whereas the maverick and rockeye munitions were intended for the heavier units - that said, even modern tanks are vulnerable to being disabled by 20mm canon shells delivered at a high rate. The F35 as a single seater is no better than the A10 in terms of pilot workload & whilst it has higher evasion speed and can carry air to air missiles the pilot has a harder time identifying and targeting without ground support. One A10 pilot I met referred to his flying gun as being the ultimate "point and click" device!

 

[The Seeker]

The last place if want to be is infront of a10 thunderbolt

 

[ollie989898]

The gun on the A10 was never intended as a tank buster, but to attack the light armour and support units whereas the maverick and rockeye munitions were intended for the heavier units - that said, even modern tanks are vulnerable to being disabled by 20mm canon shells delivered at a high rate. The F35 as a single seater is no better than the A10 in terms of pilot workload & whilst it has higher evasion speed and can carry air to air missiles the pilot has a harder time identifying and targeting without ground support. One A10 pilot I met referred to his flying gun as being the ultimate "point and click" device!

The A10 has nothing like the sensors of contemporary jet fighters and originally had no datalink. The sensor suite of the F35 means it can engage from much much farther away than any A10 pilot could dream of. The 30mm will not reliably kill a modern MBT, whereas against infantry and soft targets 20mm or 25mm will work just as well- there is no advantage.

Today the average fast jet pilot does not need to ever lay eyes on a target, the launch envelope of even the SDB, paveway or JDAM is massive- they can attack from miles away. The SDB can hit a moving target at 70km. At this range an eyeball is useless.

The B1B in Afghanistan was engaging individuals on the ground from 25,000 feet altitude using the sniper XL pod. In all CAS missions the person in control of air attacks is the JTAC anyway, no one can drop or fire anything without his authority so pilot workload is not really a factor, where more than one crewman is handy is when they want to survey that battlefield for themselves.

Against an enemy equipped with modern anti air weapons the A10 will die fast. There is no need to place the launch aircraft at risk now. Modern optics and sensors have removed that need. Even the Apache was supposed to engage the enemy at 5-8km- the range of the original hellfire.

 

[Still Farming]

https://www.facebook.com/228735667216/posts/10159343211562217

 

[BrianV]

https://www.facebook.com/228735667216/posts/10159343211562217

Interesting this chemical weapon thing, the US have a pretty dodgy history with facts from Iraqs weapons to China's virus labs financed by the yanks, & now talk of chemical weapons with US involvement, wouldn't trust Putin but I'm not convinced the Yanks aren't up to their necks in deceit?

 

[Still Farming]

https://www.facebook.com/228735667216/posts/10159341693372217

 

[Danllan]

The A10 has nothing like the sensors of contemporary jet fighters and originally had no datalink. The sensor suite of the F35 means it can engage from much much farther away than any A10 pilot could dream of. The 30mm will not reliably kill a modern MBT, whereas against infantry and soft targets 20mm or 25mm will work just as well- there is no advantage.

Today the average fast jet pilot does not need to ever lay eyes on a target, the launch envelope of even the SDB, paveway or JDAM is massive- they can attack from miles away. The SDB can hit a moving target at 70km. At this range an eyeball is useless.

The B1B in Afghanistan was engaging individuals on the ground from 25,000 feet altitude using the sniper XL pod. In all CAS missions the person in control of air attacks is the JTAC anyway, no one can drop or fire anything without his authority so pilot workload is not really a factor, where more than one crewman is handy is when they want to survey that battlefield for themselves.

Against an enemy equipped with modern anti air weapons the A10 will die fast. There is no need to place the launch aircraft at risk now. Modern optics and sensors have removed that need. Even the Apache was supposed to engage the enemy at 5-8km- the range of the original hellfire.

Rightish, but missing a few points regarding A10s. Firstly that they were - are - of enormous psychological effect. Secondly that they don't have to destroy an MBT, just disable it. Thirdly, the vast majority of their targets, now, wouldn't be MBTs - and so could be destroyed

However, there would be no need for A10s to go directly against MBTs or anything else with competent air defence nowadays, read up on SEAD / DEAD. The greatest threat remaining would be from infantry hand-launched weapons, which can't be detected and neutralised prior to deployment, or in a worthwhile way immediately after.

Opportunistic sorties are still a very valuable tactic against an enemy without a viable air defence system in place, and in nearly all instances an A10 will still be a decent option for such sorties.

 

[Still Farming]

https://www.facebook.com/228735667216/posts/10159345345227217

 

[beardface]

https://www.facebook.com/228735667216/posts/10159345345227217

If Iran vs israel and India vs Pakistan kicks off then World really is fudged.

 

[Still Farming]

https://www.facebook.com/21226447182/posts/10159030116307183

 

[ollie989898]

Rightish, but missing a few points regarding A10s. Firstly that they were - are - of enormous psychological effect. Secondly that they don't have to destroy an MBT, just disable it. Thirdly, the vast majority of their targets, now, wouldn't be MBTs - and so could be destroyed

However, there would be no need for A10s to go directly against MBTs or anything else with competent air defence nowadays, read up on SEAD / DEAD. The greatest threat remaining would be from infantry hand-launched weapons, which can't be detected and neutralised prior to deployment, or in a worthwhile way immediately after.

Opportunistic sorties are still a very valuable tactic against an enemy without a viable air defence system in place, and in nearly all instances an A10 will still be a decent option for such sorties.

But the USA are wanting to reduce the variety of aircraft they field, and with the F35 they are doing just that. It will be cheaper to train pilots and cheaper to service greater numbers of fewer types of aircraft. Yes, the A10 was very good at what it did, but at the end of the day it's mission is sort of drying up- there is no need to go low level these days to destroy infantry in the open and pick up trucks- this can all be done by anything at altitude, be it a drone or a B52 bomber with a sniper pod. Yes nothing else has the gun really but with the ability for all the various platforms to carry dozens of SDBs or guided CRV-7s which can all hit with pin point precision are you really going to miss it.

As for the F35 itself, I can't say I am a huge fan of the machine but it is undoubtedly an option that makes sense from a training, maintenance and logistical point of view. It has had to compromise on a few things, but you have an aircraft now that is flexible enough to do everything the F15, F16 and F/A18 all can and it has some advantages from stealth technology- arguably the most important thing now if you face a technologically well equipped foe.

 

[Danllan]

But the USA are wanting to reduce the variety of aircraft they field, and with the F35 they are doing just that. It will be cheaper to train pilots and cheaper to service greater numbers of fewer types of aircraft. Yes, the A10 was very good at what it did, but at the end of the day it's mission is sort of drying up- there is no need to go low level these days to destroy infantry in the open and pick up trucks- this can all be done by anything at altitude, be it a drone or a B52 bomber with a sniper pod. Yes nothing else has the gun really but with the ability for all the various platforms to carry dozens of SDBs or guided CRV-7s which can all hit with pin point precision are you really going to miss it.

As for the F35 itself, I can't say I am a huge fan of the machine but it is undoubtedly an option that makes sense from a training, maintenance and logistical point of view. It has had to compromise on a few things, but you have an aircraft now that is flexible enough to do everything the F15, F16 and F/A18 all can and it has some advantages from stealth technology- arguably the most important thing now if you face a technologically well equipped foe.

The US have been 'wanting to reduce' the variety and number of aircraft they field for the last thirty years plus! But it has always made sense to keep as many airworthy as possible, provided they can have a sensible role against a potential enemy - if a potential opposition can only field 2nd generation kit, what's the point of binning your 3rd gen' stuff? Provided you have the top-notch stuff for when needed, and can afford it, having a big reserve of older stuff makes sense.

 

[Wellytrack]

But the USA are wanting to reduce the variety of aircraft they field, and with the F35 they are doing just that. It will be cheaper to train pilots and cheaper to service greater numbers of fewer types of aircraft. Yes, the A10 was very good at what it did, but at the end of the day it's mission is sort of drying up- there is no need to go low level these days to destroy infantry in the open and pick up trucks- this can all be done by anything at altitude, be it a drone or a B52 bomber with a sniper pod. Yes nothing else has the gun really but with the ability for all the various platforms to carry dozens of SDBs or guided CRV-7s which can all hit with pin point precision are you really going to miss it.

As for the F35 itself, I can't say I am a huge fan of the machine but it is undoubtedly an option that makes sense from a training, maintenance and logistical point of view. It has had to compromise on a few things, but you have an aircraft now that is flexible enough to do everything the F15, F16 and F/A18 all can and it has some advantages from stealth technology- arguably the most important thing now if you face a technologically well equipped foe.

The US Marines still use the Harrier. They will continue to be in service until the F35B arrives in 2029.