F-CK 1

>>11069539
Awesome F-16!

That's not an F-16 is it? That profile just looks weird to me.

No, I don't think it is. For one it has 2 jets. The F16 only has 1, and it's fatter. The cockpit is far smaller, too. Pic related.

I could be wrong though.

>>11070420
>>11070466
It isn't, the second post is the actual aircraft name.

Goddamit, I'm fucking sick of these bullshit plane derp threads full of jetheads and flightguys fapping to photos of military hardware. We already have a place for that, it's called /k/, keep this bullshit off /tg/, that and your shitty quest threads.

>>11070583
Problem?

>>11070568
>look up F-CK 1 on Wiki.
>basically, a Chinese ripoff of the F-20 because Chinaland got butthurt about not getting F-16s from the US.

And it looks almost EXACTLY like the Tigershark too. Wow. Nice going China.

>>11070616
I'm not seeing the resemblance...

>>11070583
Wait, what would you prefer be on /tg/?

>>11070634
On closer inspection, the thing looks a lot like an F-20 with a bit of the F-16 spliced on.

>>11070377
Jesus, I thought he was messing with the OP, forgive my ignorance

>>11070634

I like how the chinese blatantly stole the J-10 design from the Eurofighter, and then lied about it's capablities claiming it was as good as an F-22.

>>11070583
Planes and Mercs is /tg/-related. It's about a campaign in progress.

Also;
>keep this bullshit off /tg/, that and your shitty quest threads.

Keep on trollin'

>>11070583
it's still not a quest, genius.

>>11070723
Oh China, you crazy fascists.

>>11070723
To be fair, half the design is. . .inspired by the F-16.

Isreal sort of inspired the Chinese there.

Pic related, it's Isreal asking the US if there's a problem with the licensing.

>>11070723
>>11070723
J-10 is stolen from the IAI Lavi, not the eurofighter.

Question /tg/, looking for some good WW2 era air combat games.

Suggestions?

>>11071701
Wings of War

>>11070898
>Lavi
THOSE FUCKERS

>>11070750

This thread is just discussion of planes. It has nothing to do with the Planes and Mercs campaign whatsoever.

>>11071717
He said a good game.

>>11071724
Character art threads have nothing to do with traditional games either, They're just pictures.

So kindly, keep your bullshit "not /tg/" argument out of here. We're better without it.

>>11071718

>GmbH

Wings over Germany?

>>11071724
And these pop up how often?

>>11071750

Someone's butthurt that his shit has been called out. Now fuck off back to /k/.

>>11071754
I have no idea what that means.

>>11071754
Irony indeed.

>>11071777
>BARK BARK BARK

>>11071777
>>11071724
>>11071750

Trollercoaster ahoy!

>>11071750
PLanes are not characters.

>>11071811
Except when they're transformers or shapeshifters or just regular sentient machines.

>>11071811
Bullshit.

>>11071794

>I have no argument so I'll act like a retard instead!

>>11071821

You know what would be awesome?

Transforming warforged.

>>11071821
Do I have to go into the "evolution of Strike Witches" thing again? Because I will.

>>11071848

Strike Witches are lolified representations of WWII ace pilots, not planes.

>>11071831
Dem Curves

>>11071843
I approve this.

Check Your Six is a good WW2 game.

>>11071701

WW2 is a bit tough, for WWI I would suggest Blue Max/Canvas Eagles.


For WWII the most popular choice I believe is Wings of War. I believe there is a game called "Check your 6!" which is WWII and based on Canvas Eagles.

>>11071863
Sorry. That should be:

The Evolution of the Striker Unit Through the Late Twentieth Century.

And yet, you could argue that the pilots evolve just as much as the planes they fly.

>>11071848
>>11071999
Well, I'm interested.

>>11072062
God, I love cutaways.

As /tg/'s resident fanatic of the game I feel obliged to mention that, if you want something less realistic and more fantastic, there is always Crimson Skies.

CS is basically 1930s pulp dogfighting in hotrod airplanes. Featuring sky pirates, Zeppelins, and a Balkanized North America.


Made by FASA, so you know its at least decent. Its almost 10 years out of print now though, so hardcopies would be difficult to find. Last I saw /rs/ had the core boxset and the two most vital supplements (Aircraft manual and Behind the Crimson Veil) on it.

>>11072015
I knew I should have fucking saved it. Curse me and my...me...ness.

If you want the tl;dr version: basically, due to various pressuring factors in the military aerospace industry and whatnot, Striker units have evolved over the decades. First jet engines, then a system that could laughably be called a "shield", and then CHOCKED FULL OF MISSILES AND CIRCUITS.

Modern Strikers are less leg-engines and more like a cross between the Iron Man suit and a miniature version of a Variable Fighter.

>>11072102
The aircraft manual was such a gip.

>>11072151

I admit several of the designs were rather ugly (or at least lacking a prop 30s aesthetic), but not all of them were bad.

I'm quite a fan of the firestorm. Can't say no to six .50cals.

just bringing some nice pics

>>11072147
MOTHERFUCKING TERMINATORS

HOW DO THEY WORK?

>>11072241
lol here have her bigger sis

and back to the art postin

>>11072319
Delicious Tornadoes.

>>11072329
Those are F-1's you seriously need your eyes checked

>>11072355
;_;

Cypher's a lunatic

There been anything new since Baron posted the last mission debrief? The one where three out of four of them lost their aircraft? Been busy.

>>11072409
Not that I know of.

>>11072369
Why are you crying?

>>11072319
That picture actually makes the F-1 look pretty good. I just don't know what to make of it normally. Its such an odd duck. Anyone know how capable it actually was/is?

>>11072409
Sure, they lost three birds, but the Rafale really proved is worth taking out that F-16. I can only imagine the epic dogfight.

Do I finish this dump now or wait for the new P&M thread?

>>11072499


> implying the F-16 is the pinnacle of fighter technology and that beating it is the way to the top of the bunch

Didn't they only lose two aircraft with one heavily damaged?

>>11072527
I didn't mean it to sound like that. I was more concerned with the fact that those two F-16s were clearly enemy mercs, or at least well seasoned pilots, and they DID manage to down two planes with no warning at all.

>>11072527

A-FUCKING MEN

I appreciate what the Lightweight Fighter Mafia did for NATO by inventing the F-16, but by god they need to SHUT THE FUCK UP. Some of the things those guys have been saying as of late is so painfully fucking retarded that it hurts.

Three birds? I thought only two were destroyed and one damaged.

>>11072596
Baron and Scotch ended up ditched in the (?)ocean and Hugs' bird was basically falling apart at the seams when he finally got out of mission airspace. It'll be at the bottom of the sea full of C4 by the time he's back on the carrier.

>>11072604

>secondhand sidewinders

That's like trusting your life to centerfire ammunition manufactured by Wolf.

>>11072604
...Is that UN squadron?

>It'll be at the bottom of the sea full of C4 by the time he's back on the carrier.

Poor Froggie

>>11072623
ah ok thanks

>>11072675
Yeah, we all miss the Frogfoot, but it'd fucking had it.

Is it somewhat sadistic of me if I laughed when Baron's nosegear fucking collapsed on that landing?

>>11072646

If by UN Squadron, you mean Area 88, yes.

UN Squadron was the Western name for the video game Area 88, based on a manga/anime OVA series of the same name.

Its awesome. I'd suggest finding the 1980s OVA, the early 2000s TV series wasn't nearly as good (early CGI that looks like ass nowadays).

>>11072705
not at all

>>11072736

amazing goddamn pic.

>>11072705

Yeah, the frogfoot was worth the money, because anything else wouldn't have been able to take that many hits and come home alive.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/PlanesAndMercs/topic/3566729/1/

The mission in full detail.

>77 posts
>5 of them /tg/ related

Guys, please leave it to Baron to make these threads unless you actually have something original to say about aircraft-related /tg/. As it is you're just spamming plane porn and you're making the rest of /tg/ hate us.

>>11072772
Thank you comrade.


Here is something funny.

>>11072796
I don't see anyone complaining. This thread is slow as fuck anyway.

>>11072796
Very well I shall save the rest for the next thread.

>>11072796

I hate to rage at a fellow plane thread fan, but please shut the FUCK up. Every time somebody says that I want to rip their fucking head off.

We have endless fucking touhou threads all the time, including one that's on the front page RIGHT NOW. We have fapfiction threads that are immensely popular, and don't even try to tell me they're /tg/ related, because monstergirl fucking is FIRMLY in the realm of /d/. This board is fucking BLUE.

The mods, demonstratively, do not give a flying fuck. Us tabletop gamers are, in one form or another, playing wargames, (even D&D is an evolution of such) so naturally we're going to discuss the real tech of war at some point that our wargames are based on. For FUCKS sake, there's a thread I'm posting in right now where people are discussing the REAL WORLD history of medieval armors. Why don't you go bitch in THAT thread? Clearly that's real world, thus not /tg/ related.

Need I even remind you how many goddamn /k/ommandos post in /tg/? Or how often /k/ discusses fucking zombie survival scenarios, which is much more a /tg/ topic then /k/ topic, because that's essentially a fantasy topic?

I MAD. Now shut the fuck up and post as many fucking planes as you fucking want.

Ok >>11072796 >>11072957 I think we can reach a compromise on this as in the previous thread Baron said that the others were thinking about upgrading to more modern fighters how about we dicuss that a bit more?

Fuck, fooled again

This thread reminded me I still had to watch the second half of Area 88.


Fuck me, Mickey got a Tomcat and Shin got a Tigershark. Where the fuck did he get a Tigershark in the early 1980s?

I guess it was still in development back then, so the CIA could've conveniently had one show up for the hands of a mercenary airforce for field testing, and to help fight a communist rebellion in an oil-vital friendly Arab kingdom.

>>11073094
Seems like a decent idea

So, more Rafales, Eurofighter, Super Bug or Growler, F-16E/F?

>>11073127
Am I a horrible person for initially disliking the Tigershark? Mind you, that was like 12-14 years ago when I first learned about it...

>>11073182

Its a question of what Modern fighters they can even get access to.

They seem friendly with the French thanks to their antics with the FFL. So whatever France is using is a possibility.

And, of course, prety much Russian equipment is available if you've got the funds.


I'm still disappointed the Phantom 2000 got splashed, it was a good all-rounder. Which reminds me, what about IAI, do they produce anything relatively modern?

>>11073182
Since they are more than likely going to be operating off the Vengeance for awhile that means we should probably focus on the carrier capable for now though I think that the F-15E would good if affordable.

>>11073264

Not necessarily, the idea of taking an old Airframe from the early 60s and upgrading it to compete with the new F-16 was a bit ambitious.

>>11073343


While there does exist a The SeaEagle variant of the F-15, I think the cost of refitting a normal F-15 (what they could likely get their hands on) for carrier use would be prohibitive, might as well just buy a warplane that comes carrier capable "out of the box".

>>11073343
Heck, Su-30MKI should be able to pull it of even if it's not a 'dedicated carrier plane' like the Su-33, and it's a bit more modern...

Rafale M is carrier capable as well...

And Super Bugs and Growlers ofcourse, but I never really liked those

Everyone always mentions Flankers, but never Fulcrums.

I know its heavy, agile general-purposer vs lightweight defensive fighter, but poor MiG.

They could really use a good electronic warfare platform to help with all the missiles that have been flung at them of late.

>>11073552
and no I'm not recommending an E-2

>>11073515
Just not as glamorous I guess.

And ofcourse less payload and range than the Flanker.

>>11073587
Growler maybe?

Hang on wasn't the F-18 Baron has a F/A-18D? If so maybe he can convert it to a makeshift growler.

>>11073668
You do realize that's pretty much an entirely different airframe?

>>11073728
Yes I do

>>11073748
Okidoki :)

But aside from the basic airframe difference, modifying a plane for EW (with a merc crew no less) has got to be damn expensive and require a shit load of adaptations

Might as well by a brand spanking new plane actually designed for the job

my airframe is superior, your arguments are invalid

>>11073728
sorry I should probably explain that I have no delusions of it being like a Growler I was merely thinking that maybe he could outfit the hornet he already has to preform a similar function to that of the Growler.

>>11073797
I see your point with that.

Su-47

>>11073865
Yeah, it's a fun idea

If only it were as simple as hanging a few AN/ALQ jamming pods on whatever fighter you want, that would be awesome

>>11073900
I heard that fell through. Or did they manage to fix the stability problem?

Cool looks don't mean much.

I'm still in favor of the Su-33. Sukhoi has utterly convinced me.

The Rafale is a nice plane, but one should be enough, right? Always good to have a few different planes, right? Right?

A converted Superbug as an EWS platform does sound like a good idea, but I don't know how effective it would be.

>>11072102

>>11073552
Maybe a EA-6B Prowler. Since it's retired, they might find some cheap. Or if anyone has a A-6 Intruder, they could modify it into one.

>>11073959
Just a demonstartor, not enough funding for production. New Sukhoi is being developed right now (pic related, T-50 (popularly known as PAK FA) prototype)

>>11073995
There's a dedicated EW Super Bug, the EA-18G Growler.

>>11073995
There is already a Super Bug EWS its the EA-18G Growler and yea Sukhoi sold me on the SU-33 as well.

Su-33 F/A-18 F-15E F-14D Su-30MKI and even the Typhoon have all been brought up as choices, but personally, I doubt the last two would be at all easy to get hold of considering they're basically brand new and very much state-of-the-art currently. The Flanker seems like the slightly cheaper slightly more effective choice for a carrier-based fighter that can multirole in a pinch. Dunno about the Eagle or the Tomcat myself, though.

My only experience with most of this shit is Ace Combat so I am of little help. ¯\(°_o)/¯

Of course one problem with going for newer planes is greater likelihood of ending up with no backups due to INSUFFICIENT FUNDS

>>11074139
The F-15E is not a carrier capable aircraft.

It's likely that the group have actually already made their choices and that all our discussing will ultimately have no impact. Which kinda sucks.

>>11074049
What the ugly heck is that and where is it from?

>>11074197
So far that has been the saving grace of the older aircraft is the fact that they could be replaced relatively easily.

>>11074197

This is true, new stuff is expensive, not just the purchase price, but I bet parts are a bitch too.

>>11074247
That would be the X-02 Wyvern it is a fictional aircraft from the Ace Combat series.

>>11074208
Really? Poopy. Still a good plane though.

I guess it's a shame, but it does look like they'll be needing a dedicated EWS plane soon, if not now. And the only real options available are either the Growler, the EA-6B, or buy another Aardy and cram it full of EW pods and jammers and shit.

On an unrelated note, I wonder how many BVRAAMs you could stuff into an F-22 if you really tried...

>>11074251
I think Hell's Black Aces needed to think less about their wallets and more about survivability these days.

>>11074286
That is the ugliest art of a Wyvern I've ever seen.

Poor baby.

>>11074325

There existed a Carrier F-15, but it never went beyond test models.

>F-15N Sea Eagle
>The F-15N was a carrier-capable variant proposed in the early 1970s to the U.S. Navy as an alternative to the heavier and, at the time, considered as "riskier" technology program: F-14 Tomcat. The F-15N-PHX was another proposed naval version capable of carrying the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. These featured folding wingtips, reinforced landing gear and a stronger tail hook for shipboard operation.

>>11074393
How much would it cost to fit a Strike Eagle with a tailhook and sturdier gear?

>>11074430
You need more than just that

>>11074350
That is true but more than likely they will try to strike a balance between the two.

and no that is not the worst X-02 art out there Its just the worst I was willing to post.

Yeah, stupid question I know.

I still stand by the Mirage 2000, personally. It MUST have a role SOMEWHERE.

Damnit I have a soft spot for these little things since I work on 'em. If only we had some Supers. Legacy Hornets are a pain in the ass to work on.

I used to be in 314. You may recognize the "Black Knights" from that one movie.

Sadly this digital jet got repainted back to base colors, my current boss was just a Staff Sergeant (is a Master Sergeant now) when they decided to do that paint job as a "show bird." We were almost going to do a desert digi one for shits and giggles to celebrate the Iraq Deployment but our new CO at the time was against having show birds.

My current unit has Legacies that have a kill flag and the names of the Navy pilots that flew them in Desert Shield/Storm when they downed MiG-21's.

>>11074275
Depends. Older planes break more and parts are harder to find: 1. The factories have been retooled to make different parts. 2. The backstock of parts for the plane have been bought up over the years. I have seen parts on 50 year old A/C no bigger than a PS3 cost as much as a small car.

>>11074286
I don't know what your ugly-butt plane can do, but can you put freakin' railguns on it?

>>11074458
That's what I was getting at. At the moment, they seem to be thinking about nothing but the money. They need to consider survivability a BIT more these days.

>VF-103
GOD DAMMIT ROY

>>11072102
More like balcanised EVERYWHERE. The russian civil war between Reds and Whites is still going on and has spilledinto Alasca, communist Bavaria has doen a lot better than OTL but is about to get stomped into the face by the rest of Germany under Hitler and Kaiser Willhelm, the British Empire is breaking apart etc.

The CS world in the late 30's is a fucking mess.

>>11072189
Oh yes. The Blackflag Firestorm. Made by pirates for pirates. A goddamn armored flying brick with six .50s. I love it.

>>11074472
Its role: being dead sexy

>>11074430
F-15's and F-16s all ready have tail hooks for field arrestments when they have a bad landing gear (and other reasons but landing gear is usually the #1 reasons pilots take a land trap)

Bad Gear= whenever the hell the pilot gets an unsafe gear caution or looses his anti-skid control or his wingman tells him something is fucked with his landing gear.

>>11074430
The whole airframe would have to be reinforced to withstand the controlled crash that is a carrier landing as just adding a tail hook & sturdier gear would cause the tail to be ripped off and the gear would punch right through the top of the airframe.

>>11074072
High Road to Revenge isn't exactly all that canonical. It's basically an exaggerated story told in-universe. For a more canon-like CS, you'd have to play the old PC game.

>>11074525
Fuck the Nosferatu. The only good model is the ACES version with one fucking hit point and only six ADMM volleys.

The X-02 is my favorite of the AC superplanes because it's actually just about the least crazy. It's just a sixth-generation fighter with batshit AIMs on it. No silly laser, no giant air-bursting doom missiles, no micronukes.

>>11074598
But in return for that realism, your plane is disgusting. Chinese fighter jet disgusting.

>>11074562
Lets not forget the addition of ACLS systems re-routing some of the landing gear systems to switches. I dunno if F-15s have a switch to turn their anti-skid off but it needs to be for a landing. I think there are a few other landing gear related switches that we have.

Btw strengthened gear would really be the biggest bitch of all. A Naval Landing Gear by far is the most ridiculous, overly conceived, yet necessary thing for retarded ass jets.

If you're wondering my basis for knowing this: Thats me in the green my first time out on "The Boat." I've been a Mech for 4 years now.

>>11074549
Damn right.

>>11074659
>>11074562
In short: carrier landing gear. Almost more trouble than its worth.

>>11074697
Yeah a plane really has to be purpose built to go to the boat. Design can be done but you'll be changing the airframe so much that you might as well make a new design.

Unless you count those crazy C-130 trials on the Forrestal which are still bad ass when you think about them. Takes a lot of balls to land a C-130 on a carrier, and just as much to trust that the catapult can launch your ass.

BTW Magnetic Catapults are supposedly getting installed on the Gerald Ford IIRC. Shit is cash!

>>11074659
Thank you for adding to my knowledge as I had not known about that part.

>>11074659
Rock on, man!

Now, out of curiosity (and assuming it's not classified), what's the civilian-esque side of life like on board a carrier? I mean, you've got several thousand people who may be on board a ship for months at a time, so I assume there have to be a lot of the amenities you'd expect from what's almost a floating small town.

>>11074747
>magnetic catapults
Huzzah! Maybe in about a century they'll be widespread.

>carrier launching a C-130
Jesus fucking christ that is insane. Give the pilot a fucking medal. Give him two.

>>11074801
try city

>>11074832
I never really liked the Falken's TLS. It just looks silly when the whole fucking plane comes open like that. The pod mounted between the Morgan's tailplanes makes a lot more sense, and it just looks nicer too.

>>11074821
About as crazy as those trials to try and get a Herc to take off and land in a fucking football stadium

>>11074894
Why. Just...why.

>>11074864
I agree with you on that.


Also this is the first that I've posted in this thread thats not art but damn is it awesome.

>>11074894
THAT PLANE HAS NITROUS WHAT THE SHIT

>>11074913
Hostage rescue operation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSFjhWw4DNo

>>11074944
>giant slow-moving plane with fucking thrusters everywhere what the shit

It's like watching Thunderbird 2.

>>11074927

Oh, fictional VTOL ground-attack aircraft, why you so sexy?

>>11074913
Simple they wanted to see if it could be done.

Also for sheer Those can't work that way!

>>11074801
TBH I didn't get the "full effect."

I posted the digi F-18 and 314 WAS a boat squadron but was on a land based trip when I got there, and they still are. So I spent my time there going to Japan and then coming back, getting told Iraq was the next stop then I was kicked over to a training unit (for pilots, they can technically fly leaving Pensacola but they still need to learn their platform) before they went. I RAGED pretty hard but realized this unit NEVER deploys. We do short dets here and there with parts of the unit.

In those dets we go to the boat so the cadre pilots can maintain their boat quals and the boot pilots can learn to land on them with a Hornet instead of a Goshawk. We go out onto the boat for like a week and do jack and shit until something breaks down. The one time i was out we didn't have anything maintenance related to do so we sat in the shop and played boardgames and watched movies.

Now the guys from boat units tell me that on a 6 month deployment shit is horrid. You really do have all the amenities. Shit they STILL have the small store (its like the size of a 7-11) where you can get daily essentials and candy and soda and soda machines everywhere. Everything runs off a "Ship's Card" that you pay cash to an office and they put money on the card and you can buy shit.

>>11074821
C-130 is baddass on takeoff's and landings
JATO and STOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Udbsb3cXlnY&feature=related

>>11075000

>>11074944
Glorious!

>>11075027
Galley is "meh" depends on the ship. Nimitz has a nice galley IMO for being old as shit, and I'm sure all the ships cook the same contract food anyways.

On deployment it kinda sucks because the Navy bunks all E-6's and below together (which kinda sucks for us Marines because we don't wanna be anywhere near our Staff Sergeants but now we live with them) and working 12 on, 12 off there are people going in and out all the damn time while the rest are trying to sleep.

Sorting trash also sucks dick. Anything that can be safely tossed into the water (foodstuffs) gets tossed there, other shit gets burned, and other stuff gets stored until the carrier ports and they can ditch it.

Navigating is always fun, in an attempt to reach the front end of the flight deck quicker I managed to run into Flag Country (Admiral's area) and ended up going all the away around and was late to the flight-deck walkdown.

Boredom. Just like normal there is always boredom... But we find ways to fill the time.

At the end of deployment I hear that the "Air Show" is the shit since they get clearance to drop unexpended ordnance and pretty much show off dropping bombs and shit into the water while everyone watches off the flight deck.

Thats like basic stuff but I've never really lived a "REAL" boat life. Flight deck is an adrenaline rush though.

>>11075035

>>11074929
no those are JATO rockets

>>11074913
Credible Sport. It was going to land in a Irainian soccer field to rescue the hostages during the Irainian hostage crisis. Here's the wiki article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Credible_Sport

>>11074821
The Green Shirts in the Catapult division will love life for one. The Magnetic would cut down on all the extra bull shit that a steam pult has. So they won't be getting to dirty anymore since they won't have to oil and grease the shit out of it constantly. Which will make the Arresting Gear fags officially the dirtiest mofos on the ship.

Here ya go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjNyQvhsQE8

Yeah, I bet being the LSO on that one was fun...

>>11075016
Okay, that thing just looks silly. By comparison, the P-1112 is almost believable.

Hell, it's just a giant fucking B-2 in the end. And as carriers go, it's fucking tiny compared to most modern supercarriers. I doubt the damn thing even has a proper hangar or anything. If you took out the Nimbus, you could maybe fit most of your average carrier into the Aigaion. And MAYBE it'd fly.

Good luck getting it launched though. Good god.

DON'T DIE

Well I guess we're out of discuss? That's basically /thread then.

>>11075462
Yep I'm just gonna post a few more pics then let it go.

>>11074562
Partly right, the gear might be an issue, especially for takeoff with a cat (but not a ski jump) and the landing. But the F-15, in fact most USAF aircraft already have a tailhook, just not a constant use one.

And to prove I am not talking shit, here is the F-15's hook.

Some people recently have mentioned that they doubt what I say.

And the F-16

So what would a modern 'army' look like in an air warfare game?

>>11077311
What COuntry?

No one cares about this stupid quest thread for planetards, stop spamming the board with this shit.

>>11078648
Read the thread moron.

>>11077471

It depends on if their doctrine is fighter based air superiority or if they believe in organic air defense attached at every level.

If it's fighter based you're going to face ALOT of very well piloted fighters backed with integrated Airborne Radar and command and control planes and integrated ground based radar. Missile based ground defenses will be deployed mostly on or around static positions, and will be a secondary priority.

If it's heavily in ground based defence, you're going to face MANPADS (Stinger, Igla) at the Platoon level, Dedicated Anti Air vehicles at the battalion lever (Gepard, Tunguska) and the theater is going to have SAM installations. There may or may not be fighter support, but as a general rule, every part of the army should have something to engage a hostile air unit.

>>11076200
>>11076265
>>11076167
Thank you for further adding to my knowledge.

>>11079712
Same here, I never knew that.

Why do they have tailhooks?

>>11080494

Probably to assist with landings on shortish airfields, or in the event of damage to the aircraft.

>>11080494
Emergencies would be my guess.

>>11081282
>>11081364
looks like you guys are right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5Jf-OnMyec
It's for emergency landing for short airstrips

>>11080494
>>11081282
>>11081364
I direct you gentlemen to my earlier post. You are correct!
>>11074550

>>11087654
God, I don't see how anyone can't get aroused by a jetfighter.

Hold on this threads still alive?

>>11089890
Unfortunately.

>>11070616
Hey retard, the F-CK-1 is a TAIWANESE program.

>The IDF program was initiated when the United States of America refused to sell F-20 Tigershark and F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters to the Republic of China (Taiwan) following pressure on the United States from the People's Republic of China (PRC). The Republic of China therefore decided to develop an indigenous fighter. The IDF jet fighter project was designed and built by the Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation (AIDC) based in Taichung, Taiwan, with assistance from American defense corporations.

Re-read this last line you spastic
>with assistance from American defense corporations.
That's why it looks like the F-20

>>11090428

Pssst Taiwan is the Republic of China. So calling them Chinese isn't completely incorrect.

bump

>>11070723
>I like how the chinese blatantly stole the J-10 design from the Eurofighter,
sauce? because I'm calling bs on this.

>then lied about it's capablities claiming it was as good as an F-22.
sauce? ditto.

You failed to accuse the J-10 of being a rip-off of the Lavi, the F-16, the Gripen or the Rafale.
There is even a recent Pravda article calling the J-10 is an Su-27 clone.

For the record, China acknowledges Israeli assistance on the J-10 avionic systems but denies any connection to the Lavi.

>>11094163

In other words, nobody knows jack shit about the J-10 because it's relatively new and the chinks keep their cards close to their chest.

>>11094207
Shovel enough bull and even god won't know what you're capable of...let alone NATO.

>>11094163
The J-10 airframe is a carbon copy of the lavi.

bump

Fucking kid's toy

>>11097305
The A-10? Yeah, it is a pretty useless airframe.

>>11097326
>>11097326
what?

>>11097326
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUCK YOU

>>11097326

You're either trolling or know nothing about the A-10.

>>11097151

First Lavi test flight: December 31, 1986
Chinese PopSci magazine cover published: June 1979

Read this:
>Mikhail Pogosyan, the head of MiG and Sukhoi design bureaus, stated that he did not want to sign another large contract to deliver RD-93 engines, which China used for its FC-1 fighters, the clones of MiG-29.
>In addition, China has launched the serial production of J-10 and J-11 jets, the rip-offs of Sukhoi 27 and 30.

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/economics/06-07-2010/114138-russian_fighter_jets-0

Hilarious!

tl;dr: FC-1=MiG-29, J-10=Su-27, J-11=Su-30

bump

A-10 like most Americanski shit is massively over-rated. There is nothing that the A-10 can do that the F-16 can't do cheaper and from a higher altitude.

>>11097657
The J-10 is a single engine delta wing small fighter.

How is that anywhere close to the SU-27?

>>11097470

>>11098441
As a note, I do like the F-16 as well--it's my favorite fighter, in fact. However, a bit of devil's advocate?

A) The F-16 is American, just like the A-10.
B) The A-10 is LESS expensive than the F-16, not more.

>>11074139
WAT IS THAT

>>11098441

Survivability.

>>11098441
the entire damn point of it is to be at lower altitude

>>11099417
The A-10s survivability in a low level engagement in a modern conflict is very low.

The F-16, or better yet, the F-22, when equipped with smart munitions, are far superior choices, when coupled with decent local area support from the much more versatile helicopter.

>>11098441
4/10 for getting me to reply.

Can the F-16 throw down a thousand rounds of 30mm depleted uranium of a couple of seconds?

Didn't think so.

>>11100657
What is the actual battlefield use of that?

>>11101377
>>11100657
You think you're gonna need it to take care of that soviet horde coming through the Fulda gap? You're 20 years out of date. Everything from UAVs to F22s can do it...just without the fuck awesome gun.

>>11101541
the fuck awesome gun is the point.

See, here's the problem. UAVs don't pack the ordinance. I get, what? maybe, MAYBE a pair of dinky ass missiles, then "oh, sorry guys, we're winchester". Ditto the F-22 which has loiter time of absolutely fuck all, and ordinance of the same, 'cos i can promise you a buncha go-fast pukes won't give two shits about what the infantry needs and will want to retain 'stealth' in every possible fucking mission, and the second it gets so much as scratched, they'll bugger off, cos a grunt is a lot cheaper than a paint job, am I right?

I'll tell you this. the second the USAF decides the A10 is leaving their inventory, the US army's gonna form a new air corps.

>UAVs don't pack the ordinance.

Except one the technologies mature, there will be shitloads of UAVs in the air. If you need a missile ASAFP chances are there's going to be a drone right overhead. If you need more missiles, more drones arrive. Drones are cheap and pilotless, even the Air Force would gladly throw away a drone to save an infantry squad. And when they get shot down, they won't make you go rescue the pilot.

>>11101867

once the tech matures, I'll give you. It's also entirely possible in a decade or two manned aircraft won't be used at all because railguns or something. Right now though? there is no aircraft that can do the job of the A-10 as well as the A-10 in a western inventory. And, to be honest, after what I've seen, I'mma take the 'sacrifice a drone' comment with a grain of salt.

>>11099395

A movie prop.

>>11101700
>>11102015

And yet in the high threat environment of a true conflict, like the ones the A10 was built for, it can no longer truly compete against a modern military with their modern air defense umbrellas that are particularly lethal at lower levels. And using an A10 for anything less than a full on war is frankly a waste...especially considering the big gun.

>>11101700
>I'll tell you this. the second the USAF decides the A10 is leaving their inventory, the US army's gonna form a new air corps.

They already have one, they fly helicopters, which are a more effective close support tool than any aircraft. For punching tanks, the F-22 or something similar is far superior to the A-10, especially in light of advances in anti-tank weaponry.

The A-10 is a relic, one of many in the USAF that needs to be put out to pasture.

Others include the KC-135, the C-5, the B-52 OR the B-1B (Preferably the -52), and the E-3.

>>11101700
A few more things I just have to address.
>See, here's the problem. UAVs don't pack the ordinance. I get, what? maybe, MAYBE a pair of dinky ass missiles.
Well, considering a hellfire will pop anything, I wouldn't call them dinky. And there is four, plus two other hardpoints, so probably eight or more on each UAV.

>Ditto the F-22 which has loiter time of absolutely fuck all, and ordinance of the same,
The F-22 has a superior loiter to the A-10 on internal fuel using both engines. It also can carry tremendous loads of ordinance. And if you don't want an F-22, the Strike Eagle has been doing the bomb truck role better than the A-10 ever since it was developed.

The A-10 lugs around a big heavy gun for nothing, and is built for an environment that just doesn't exist anymore.

These days, you'd go in fast with F-16s, with Steagles on SEAD, and hopefully punch through the air defense quickly, knock out the tanks with guided munitions, then get the hell out. The A-10 just can't do that kind of mission.

>>11102602
Pardon me if I come off rude here, but what exactly are your credentials to be making such claims? It's quite easy to be a Chair Force General and say such things, but it's another thing entirely to have experience and insight with the military and the things you're talking about.

>>11102602

The A-10 has the hardpoints required for close air support over the F-22. Not to mention the price of an F22 airframe and the amount we currently have.

Jesus christ all of you guys have 2 dimensional minds.

All you need is some ECM or an LTD and its not even a fucking contest, you'd throwing spitwads.


The thing I'm really paying attention to is THELs.

If they start putting them on aircraft, they just MAY replace the gun, although we've heard this before.

>>11102761

Okay fuck face then why aren't we?


I still see A-10's being called out.

>>11102761
Predator drones are actually poorly disguised Space Marines.

>>11102963
I'll admit it. I loled.

>>11102792

He doesn't, he's just some guy who jacks off to mig 21's and then has the gaull to call the A-10 out dated.

Guys. What's a good multipurpose fighter for a country with relatively modest means and that could be built entirely or in most part in said country?

And when we talk about their airforce, how much of the budget should go towards actual aircraft, and how much ought to go to training, support facilities, communications, etc?

>>11102835
>>11102810
>>11102792

God you're hostile. Look at what the A10 was designed to do. Bust tanks. The gun it carries was necessary when it was designed because air launched anti tank missiles weren't capable enough at the time. What is it getting used for now? Certainly not busting tanks. Its close air support now which can be flown more cost effectively by either helicopters or UAVs.

And ECM isn't a cure all against air defenses. You're making it out to be a magical cure all vs missiles and guns alike...which it most certainly is not.

Oh and before you go all "chairforce" on us please share with us your credentials if you will. I doubt they're any more esteemed than ours are.

The advantage of the A-10 is that it is simple. Take a large caliber gun that can go through tanks, add a titanium skin around it, add some simple engines, and just for the fun, a few more bombs.

It's like a truck. Sure, you can get a new one with leather seats and chrome wheels and a fresh coat of paint, but if you are going to cart around poop while driving through it, it makes less sense. The A-10 still works, and there is no reason to get rid of it.

Helicopters, while "armored," won't stand up to what you will see in the battlefield (SAM's and even RPG) and have a very bad linger time in combat. They require a lot more maintenance.

>>11103030
Is this for a campaign?

>>11103000
I've always liked the MiG-21...not so much because of its capabilities (though that newer Bison variant from India is fairly good), but rather because it looks like it was designed by a Raygun Gothic artist.

>>11103035

I've got a Marine right behind me.

>helos

Another black hawk down eh?

The A-10 is much more armored and quicker than our helos and it can reach greater altitude, something the helo wasn't meant to do. Especially ours.

Also I'm pretty sure I remember the A-10 doing some tank busting in Iraq not long ago.


ECM, might not be magic, but its enough to buy some time which is what really matters.

>>11103030
Are you looking for a single multirole to handle all air force jobs, or a couple of different models, or just a regular fighter?

>>11103030

F-20 Tiger shark.

>>11103035
I have no credentials to speak of. But I'm also not making any claims in this thread yet. Asking someone who's trying to make authoritative statements about military equipment and doctrine to validate their claims with some substantialized background or experience isn't improper.

And I feel a bit justified in the Chairforce comment, I left /k/ a long time ago for the reason of seeing so many people make absolute claims without having any substantial experience, or perspective, on the how's and why's of things. I'd just like to know yours.

For example, I could dispute that while the F-22 is a fantastic superiority fighter and certainly quite advanced, to send such an expensive fighter out for simple tank mopping is a bit extreme, especially since as I understand it the designated/expected role of the Raptor is to punch holes in air defenses so planes like the A-10 and F-15E can actually come in.

But I've already admitted I have no credentials to speak of, so everything I say can probably be easily disputed by anyone with valid military experience in strategy and tactics and doctrine.

*BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
TTTTTTTTTT*

>>11103168

To be honest at this point we should just " NO U" right back.

I mean, what are his fucking credentials?


I'm pretty sure /tg/ isn't a fucking war room, as much as we'd like.

And even with experience and training, it's god damn near impossible to even make such bold fucking statements.

War is war and it's all about luck, skill and more luck.

So you've got a marine giving you a marines point of view. Thats respectable...but not you.

The A10 is simple, rugged, and paid for true. Yes it busted tanks in Iraq not to long ago. But think about that. The Iraqi army did not have the kind of defense umbrella a modern force would have. Every single opponent the A10 has ever gone up against in real combat has been third rate with amazingly out of date equipment. Its designed for a battlefield 20 years in the past. Its still capable for what its doing now...but theres no need to pour more money into them to keep them running when we can produce drones that will deliver the same smart weapons cheaper. When that war between us and a modern force comes along though i'll take a more modern aircraft over the A10.

Helicopters properly used will stand up just as well as your low flying low speed A10 in modern warfare. Especially since both can carry your all powerful ECM.

>>11103035
>>11103257

can either of you tell me what modern country America and it's A-10's would get in a fight with that wouldn't involve nuclear weapons being detonated? Or for that matter, a world war breaking out?

face it, the A-10 is still a great tank buster, and if it's not being used in that roll, it's great at pretty much any other CAS role it's needed in.

>>11103257

There is more to ECM than the ones put onboard the jets themselves.

And Drones have yet to hold their own, that technology has got ALOT of advancement ahead.

And you're right, you said it yourself.

The A-10 is a rugged, capable, 20 year old, CHEAP, AFFORDABLE, READILY AVAILABLE, airframe.

I doubt we'd want to waste a non replaceable F-22 we just cut budget from.

So what are your credentials again? I'm still waitin

>>11103336


Thats another thing, what all powerful umbrella are we up against?

Cause my understanding is that our current defense systems are not 100% reliable, I doubt the other guys are either.

>>11103175
Quit blowing that vuvuzela, dammit!
But anyway, it's cool. A-10 = A-ten = Aten = Egyptian sun god.

>>11103132
A multirole that can either do all the major roles, or one that can be modded easily to handle different roles. So one airframe to handle the workhorse duties of an airorce. Made up aircraft are fine too, assuming they would actually work as desicribed in reality.

To flesh out this countries needs, it's smallish country, 500km across it's widest part, figure about the size of Columbia. It has a coast on a major ocean and boarders with 3 other countries, all of them somewhat hostile due to territorial disagreements and ehtnic minority issues in border areas which is a constant area of operations for the country's armed forces (think Gaza except lower-key and less volitile). Major exports are agriculture and precious metals, 70% of which goes out via the sea lanes. A new government has recently taken over, and has decided that it's going to secure their borders once and for all, and be prepared deal with largers countries if they try and interfer with them.

>>11103555
yeah, then. F-20 or maybe the F-4X.

>>11103555

This sounds eerily like Israel.


Buy a few mirages and become gunfighters!


Actually I'd think the F-16 would meet those requirements.

>>11103555
Any other details? This sounds pretty interesting.

>>11103356
>>11103336

China, Russia, India, Pakistan...all have the bomb and none of them, or us for that matter, would seriously use the bomb if the other could retaliate in any sort of sizable numbers.

The A10 is fine for what its doing right now. Its not doing what its designed to and certainly isn't getting any younger but its fine. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that in a modern setting vs modern opponents it wouldn't last. I took this stance when you came in trying to beat people over the head with your own HURR DURR A10 bull. If you'd come in with less force this wouldn't have degenerated.

Drones HAVE proved themselves...otherwise we wouldn't be using them in the numbers we are. And personally i wouldn't want to use an F22 against tanks. Waste of money I agree. But they CAN be used that way and can do it from further away more safely than the A10 can...or rather is designed and is best at.

As for my credentials...well i don't have a marine to back me up or give me his thoughts on the matter at this moment but i'd say soaking up every bit I could from a constant series of neighbors from all services over the years(living in hawaii tends to net you a constant stream of military personnel) plus having ready access to naval and air force bases and personnel, free in depth tours, etc...and then, once that got cut off due to 9/11, keeping in near constant touch with the friends i had made plus keeping my as self well versed in current readable topics as I could stands for something. So unless you pull an airforce rank or some other clearance out of your ass i'd say we're pretty evenly placed.

>>11102602
>>11102761

I can summarize this easily-

>you sent fast jets into high-threat airspace, not CAS.

Obviously. We tend to forget that the A-10 was not meant to operate against areas defended against medium-and-high-altitude, long range SAMs. The reason it's an armored sonovabitch is because just by being 1. low and 2. near enemy troops, it's already in an extreme high threat environment. MANPAD SAMs, a metric asston of light AAA of all varieties, ect. You need to have heavy armor just to have a chance of survival at that altitude. Properly defended airspace is a job for a completely different kind of aircraft. The A-10 is meant to mix it up over a large, fast-moving front.

Hell, in it's original mission role- chewing on Soviet armor advancing across Europe- it wasn't expected to be a tremendous game-changer. A-10 pilots were jokingly referred to as "speed bumps." It's just that since the Great Commie Slaughterfest never materialized, the A-10 grew into this kind of legendary magic dragon of righteous American vengeance.

>>11103658

Why buy the Mirage when you can steal its blueprints and RE your own version?

>>11103773

>Drones have proved themselves


You mean they've proved themselves in that same non modern setting you keep talking about?

Didn't we fucking lose one to a Mig not long ago?

And the Gau 8 is not the only selling point of the A-10. It has tons of hardpoints that can go toward LTD bombs that can be used against large groups of forces.

Outside of the enemy range, all you need is a handful of cheap aircraft with the laser, like say an F-4 and have it punch in and punch out.

OR EVEN THE F22 :O

Problem solved, the A-10 is still useful.

>>11103336

A10s have and are continuing to rape towel heads in the middle east. mainly because they're built like a brick shithouse.

pic related; they blew a chunk out of the wing, and fucked the entire hydraulics system, but the pilot managed to fly it home. epic shit.

>>11103773

First, the A10 was designed for CAS, not just tank plinking. CAS Includes tank plinking, yes. It is not exclusive to that, however. Second, 'further away' is crap. it means when I'm on the ground, and I hear 'weapons away' it's still going to be 15-20 seconds till they impact. that's a hell of a lot of time, especially if it's bad enough air support had to be involved. third, the F35 carries 180 rounds internally for it's 25mm. the A10 carries over 1100 for a 30mm. that's a hell of a big ordinance difference, and that's not counting external stores vs. internal ones. fourth, UAV/UCAV platforms are nice, but fail in a high tech battlefield just as much as an A10- they're slow and not particularly stealthy, though their size plays in their favor here. but, again, they a damn limited payload. Fifth, the air force already tried to phase out the A10s once. it didn't work. all that being said, i agree that, when UCAV technology matures, they'll undoubtedly replace the A10. I strongly doubt the clusterfuck that is the F35 will be able to do satisfactorily, and I know that the F22, which was designed as an air superiority platform, won't be able to.

>>11103906
A-10's still have that good old-fashioned brickhouse WWII airplane ruggedness that makes them legendary in their own rights.

Being able to fly home missing half a wing and down an engine is pretty nice.

>>11103857

We get that you like the A10. Yes its a capable aircraft. It'll still be around for a while yet. You are hurr durring this into the ground sir.

Yes the drones have proven themselves. Yes its only been in the less than modern setting and until they both get a chance at a true modern war we'll never know. But what we do know is that drones are doing the same job safer and cheaper. I don't particularly like the drones since they're killing the airforce i know and love with their ground bound pilots but you can't deny that they're effective.

>>11103803

>wrong field

(teach me to drink till 2AM)


The A-10 is still perfectly effective in it's intended role; the question is weather UAVs will replace it in said role. As for fast-movers popping tanks, well, it's always been fairly cheap and effective for a Strike Eagle to pop tanks with Mk-84s and LGB kits. (Of course the GAU-8 is even cheaper, and acquiring ground targets from a 'safe altitude' at fast mover speeds isn't easy even with a FLIR pod. This is why attack choppers came to be.) Killing tanks from 15,000 feet with an F-22s Small Diameter Bombs... that sounds like something made possible entirely by our new satellite-guided munitions, and I think it is a huge, huge mistake to assume we'll have satellites in the next high-intensity conflict. If there's one lesson the Chinese have grasped, it's that it's a lot easier to shoot down a satellite then it is to replace one. I also wonder about UAV uplink/downlink jamming, but electronic warfare is just too wild for Joe Layman like me to really get.

This might easily be wrong; most of my knowledge is invested in planes made when reflector gunsights was the ultimate word in hot shit avionics, but the only thing I can think of that'd really make the A-10 truly useless is some giant leap forward in FLIR pods and related tech that makes finding AFVs easy from 15k, and since nobody is talking about the imminent demise of the attack chopper these days, I take it this hasn't happened.

>>11103942

And i'm no F35 fan either so i won't argue that bit.

>>11103857
drones won't completely replace all assets but they do provide cheap long loitering ready weapons platforms to quickly aid any ground troops.

they can be destroyed easily by a modern enemy with fighters though.

ＳＴop fuckiNg ＡＴTＡｃｋＩＮg_Ｗｗw.ＡｎoｌaWLｔaＬK.ｓｅ ＲeＰＬACＥ ｌａＷｌ wＩTh n
xqeb ui qyophtyy jctikaavtqnyd ecjz

>>11103976

Hey, I'll say this for our new marine friend- what he and his mates want, on the ground, is a strafing pass on those derkaderkas in that ditch over there, and they want it right the fuck NOW. That is something no UAV now, or any UAV likely to be built, can deliver. (Well DARPA does have this fucking scary sniper-helo-UAV thing, but I digress.) I seem to recall a pithy anecdote from a British marine calling their Harrier's gunless fire support "utterly, utterly useless."

Attack choppers might substitute here, in which case it's a question between the superior range/speed of the A-10 and the fact that helos can operate out of FOBs that are just closer to the front in the first place. (Closer to the front also means "more readily over-run by fast enemy advances" which helps explain why the A-10 was made back when TANK RUSH KEKEKE was expected from the Soviets in Europe.)

>>11103980

Operation linebacker!

You're my boy blue!

>>11104143

Bingo. 'air support' generally means "right the fuck NOW" as opposed to "whenever your hypertech ass locks up the target box and pumps out some PGMs that'll get here in 20 seconds cos you're loitering 5 miles away at 30,000 feet up". I mean, shit, if that was CAS we'd have already phased out the A10 for the B1B or B52 and called it a day.

>>11104143

Not to mention the advances of a gun, all you have to do is line up the pipper and spray as you pull.

It won't be decoyed, it won't suffer electrical malfunctions, you just can't replace the gun.

And its an effective gun at that.

>>11104269

Not to mention cheap. An Mk84 with a laser guidance kit is cheap; cannon shells are even cheaper. As long as the bombs are cheaper then the tank they kill it shouldn't matter, but the gun is somewhat more versatile.

More importantly it's payload-efficient. If you aim well, the gun can kill 5-6 tanks with it's internal ammo (at least, I might be wrong,) which almost doubles it's anti-tank payload, considering that it can carry 8 Mk84s (max payload 16,000 pounds IIRC.)

(Of course this is all conditional considering you might get more tanks with less bombs i.e. using Rockeye IIs properly dropped blah blah I can't be bothered to list all the possible reasons I might be wrong blah blah)

well 4 tl;dr posts in one night is enough for me. later folks.

>>11104452

FUCK

30 years ago, one of the more hostile countries bordering our country -- let's call it Amoria -- seized 30km of fertile farmlands and small rivers, which they controlled for 12 years during which time they attempted to cemment their hold by sending settlers in comprimised of an ethnic minority which had historic claims on the land. In a UN-negotiated settlement 18 years ago, the hostile nation would withdraw back to it's original borders, but the settlers would be allowed to remain. Amoria wasted no time in segrating the ethnic minority into their own townships and villages, which lead eventually to civil unrest in the effected areas and armed uprising, which Amorian intelligence believes is supported by her neighbors. The current Amorian government, having arrived in power following a non-violent coup with majority support of the populace, declared that Amoria "shall not become another Isreal", and that a "final solution" was in the offing, perhaps unware of the unfortunate conotations this statement carried internationally. The government's solution was tested 3 years ago when the Amorian armed forces attacked one of the more active centers of ethnic unrest, ejecting residents from their homes, allowing them only to take whatever they can carry and whatever personal vehicles they have, and forcing them to cross the border from which they originally came. Those who resisted were arrested, often beaten and sometimes shot out-right. This action thrust Amoria onto the front page of every major newspaper for a few days, and the reaction internationally was fierce. Recoiling from the diplomatic pressure, Amoria's leadership halted any further actions of this nature, fearing military intervention. Instead, a new path would be taken; the government called upon the nation to make some sacrifices to build a powerful, self-sufficient defense force with an emphisis on air power with the ability to interdict anything her enemies would throw at it before it hit Amorian soil.

>>11099329
The top one is a full production fighter and the bottom one is prototype. One is a figment of imagination, the other is reality. It's like comparing the imaginary starship enterprise to a real spaceship.

pic of Gripen, another delta canard fighter.

>>11104578
The leader of the Amorian ruling party is a student of modern military history, and places great importance on the strength of the national airforce. However, Amoria does not have a aerospace industry and currently relies on importing arms from other country; the ruling party wishes this change, and has made available from seized assets from the last, disposed governing body, approximately 1 billion US. In addition, party supporters have organized 10,000 strong voulenteer workers to be thrown into the effort at need. The nation already has an advanced steel industry, and plants that build components for aircraft turbines. The party has decreed that Amoria shall have a self-sustained military aerospace industry, and begins looking for contractors and plans.

You are approached to design the areospace program for Amoria.

Wow, a lot of false facts about the A-10 in here...

What a lot of people don't seem to get, or maybe just one person, is that an A-10 has to loiter, turn, come into zone, fire, and depart. The same as any other jet, or UAV for that matter. It is not some magical being that appears delivering fire support quickly. If you want a low level aircraft to deliver fire support, quickly, nearly instantly, operating in a zone that has no air defense of note, well the AC-130 already exists.

The F-16 and the F-15 can provide the same level of support as an A-10, and, as a benefit, they can be used in other roles as well. From an efficiency standpoint, the A-10 is not useful anymore. As to the gun, a 30mm gun is not a huge deal for aircraft. Russian aircraft fly with 30mm cannons, the MiG-27 was famous for it's cannon being exceptionally powerful (to the point of breaking the airplane it was strapped to). The Europeans have been using the DEFA and other 30mm cannons for a long time. Now, ammunition load wise, the A-10 has covered, but the truth is that cannon kills are rare these days. It's safer, easier, more reliable, etc, to use ATG missiles and LGBs.

As to the A-10 survivability, it's an aircraft, it is armoured in the cockpit area, but the rest of it is just a plane. Most fighters have triple redundancy, and you can find a video of an F-15 having lost a full wing and returning to base. So the A-10 ruggedness is a bit overplayed. Since they spend more time low, they'll probably take a lot more shooting too, unlike jets which can get in and out of zone faster.

>>11109601
>From an efficiency standpoint, the A-10 is not useful anymore.

We get it, you don't know what you're talking about. Also, the notion that the A-10 is only useful in areas without air defenses is so fucking retarded that it hurts.

>>11109601

>a 30mm gun is not a huge deal for aircraft. Russian aircraft fly with 30mm cannons

>Comparing the Gau 8 to a 50 year old cannon.

>>11109661
It isn't useful, it's a target about to be shot down.

>>11109730
The current 30mm in widespread use was made in 1977, which is the same year as the GAU-8. Both are roughly 30 years old. And yes, DU rounds are available for both. But it remains a moot point in my eyes, since cannon fire tends to be extremely short ranged and inaccurate, unless fired from a stable platform. Again, the AC-130 is a much better solution for the type of action the ground pounder in the thread was talking about.

>>11109795
Why do you despise the Warthog so very much, Sukhoi? Did one murder your children? Did one sit on your lawn and ruin your petunias?

Why do you seem absolutely determined to convince everyone that the A-10 is a useless hunk of swiss cheese covered in shit covered in niggers?

>>11109730
The A-10 avenger isn't exactly young. The A-10 was built to deal with a threat thatdoesn't exist. A UAV, a helicopter are better options for air support, or a high speed JDAM pass from a Strike Eagle.

>>11109601
Thanks, I think I lost 20 IQ points after reading that entire post.

>As to the gun, a 30mm gun is not a huge deal for aircraft.

For it's size and performance, yes, the GAU-8 is a huge deal

>Russian aircraft fly with 30mm cannons, the MiG-27 was famous for it's cannon being exceptionally powerful (to the point of breaking the airplane it was strapped to).

Because of the shoddy construction of Soviet equipment at the time - yet you honestly try to point to this as OMG ITS SO POWERFUL! ? Fucking wow.

The GAU-8 uses a larger cartridge and has a longer barrel and uses a much wider range of ammunition than the GSh-6-30 all while having much better accuracy, much higher muzzle velocity and it wasn't built in GLORIOUS PEOPLE'S TRACTOR FACTORY so it doesn't damage the aircraft that's using it.

I'd go after some of your other points, but the moment you that you implied that the A-10 wasn't meant to work in zones with heavy air defenses and that the F-15 and F-16 are better at the ground attack role, you proved yourself to be an idiot.

>>11109826
I don't hate it, but it does have a near mythical status that frankly is undeserved.
The F-16 does a lot of jobs, it is an exceptionally balanced plane, highly versatile, but rarely gets any attention. When someone says F-16 everyone thinks high maneuverability, and not much else.

I also don't like the F-35 for a variety of reasons, since unlike the F-22, it isn't actually all that great. The STO/VL version is fairly interesting, but that's another story.

>>11109730
>>11109661
>clueless fanboy detected.
Grow the fuck up. The A-10 was good in it's time but in 2010 it is obsolescent junk.

The A-10 was intended for a niche that is now covered more flexibly by better planes. That is why you will notice that there ain't any countries rushing to build their own modernised variants of it. Not in Europe, not in China, not anywhere. That is why it has no export success. The OV-10 Bronco has more future than the A-10 does.

>>11109875
>Herp derp, I don't have to refute any points if I use greentext and call someone a fanboy XD

>>11109861
When you say higher muzzle velocity, do you mean the extra 100m/s? That won't make much difference, honestly, it just doesn't. Nor does the extra 25g projectile weight.

The old gsh-6-30, the gau-8s rival, is being phased out in preference for a twin barrel autocannon, which is sturdier, and does roughly the same job.

And the ammunition loadouts on the Russian stuff is just as varied as the US inventory.

>>11109960
>GSh-6-30
>Muzzle velocity 845 m/s

>GAU-8 Avenger
>Muzzle velocity 1,070 m/s

>That won't make much difference, honestly, it just doesn't

Because penetrating armor with a KE round like the typical 30mm DU round, most definitely won't benefit from a 200m/s increase in velocity, right? I guess you better tell the Germans that the L/55 wasn't needed either because 200 m/s doesn't mean anything.

>>11109998
Are you using wiki stats again?

>>11110023
Just ignore him, he spews wikiness as gospel in every thread.

The gau8 is so godly that they are going to put 2 of them on the F-22 and the F-35. The soviets lost the cold war because the saw how awesome the a-10 was wept and realized that their tank armies would be toasted by such godly firepower

>>11110023
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/systems/gau-8.htm
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/GAU-8_Avenger
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/GSh-6-30.htm
http://kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/gsh6_30.htm
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Gryazev-Shipunov_GSh-6-30

Ahh, the poor mans logic of falling back on "LOLOOOL WIKIPEDIAFAG" instead of actually attempting to refute points made.

>>11110033
Cool story, bro, you don't even know who I am.

That’s it. I’m sick of all this “Masterwork Mudmover” bullshit that’s going on in this thread right now. A-10s deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.
I should know what I’m talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine A-10 in America for $11.8 million (that’s USD) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even penetrate the armor belt of the Iowa BB with my A-10.
American Engineers spend years working on a single A-10 and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest aircraft known to mankind.
A-10s are thrice as fast as Soviets jets and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a T-50 can destroy, an A-10 can destroy better. I’m pretty sure an A-10 could shoot down the moon with one volley.
Ever wonder why the Soviets never bothered invading Europe? That’s right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Americans and their A-10s of destruction. Even in the GWoT, Taliban insurgents targeted the A-10s first because their killing power was feared and respected.

>>11110203
The A-10 is the pinnacle of modern combat aircraft technology. With it's GAU-8 gatling cannon, it is an unparalleled force on the battlefield, able to decimate ground targets with ease while remaining well outside anti-aircraft unit range. In addition, multiple hardpoints on either wing allow AMRAAM missiles to be attached, enabling the A-10 to defeat aerial targets as well as land based targets.

But it's combat capabilities are merely the tip of the iceberg. The General Electric TF34-GE-100 turbofan engines are some of the most efficient engines ever built, getting an incredible 86 knots per gallon of fuel spent. The A-10 is one of the first 'green' gunships built, and shows that the Air Force cares about the environment.

The A-10 also leaves virtually no logistical footprint - once in the air, the A-10 can keep itself resupplied almost indefinitely by mining the air for minerals and processing them into ammunition. Solar panels on the wings allow the A-10 to remain airborne, though it will operate at a reduced speed. Life support systems installed will keep the crew comfortable regardless of what the enemy can throw at them - in effect, once the A-10 goes up, it has the option of never coming down. As for being shot down, that's not an option either - the heavy tungsten carbide 'bathtub' around the fuselage render it immune to almost anything that could hit it, whether it be small arms, anti-aircraft cannon or missile, cruise missile, or ballistic missile - the armor plating will deflect more or less anything, which allows the A-10 to interdict, ram, and defeat incoming ICBMs as part of our national missile defense network.

Thanks to it's universal range, the A-10 can operate around the clock across the planet, striking at targets from up to 60km in the air and 250km away with its heavy cannon and missiles. As a strategic weapon, it is unparalleled, and it is the crown jewel of the US Air Force.

>>11110023
even if they were, how does that change the fact that they're cited and you don't have anything other to say other than "u get that from wiki??"

>>11110210
>it is the crown jewel of the US Air Force
You need to tell the USAF and USN that and get them to stop faffing around with the F-35 nonsense. All America needs in more A-10.

>>11110210
Nothing personal but I hate those /k/unts. Too many lips flapping way above their paygrade

>>11109861

Jesus Christ the armchair /k/ommando butthurt in here is fucking amazing.

Sukhoi has asserted the following:

1. The A-10 isn't the only aircraft in the world mounting cannons suitable for infantry suppression in CAS.

2. The A-10 dies when you shoot it with big missiles.

3. Multirole fighters are cost-efficient.

4. Technically speaking, anything with wings and a hardpoint can drop a bomb on a tank, it's not fucking hard.

ALL OF THESE FACTS ARE DEMONSTRABLY TRUE. The A-10 is not some magic fairy dragon of American retribution; if you shoot at it enough, it will die. It's slow specifically so the crew has time to pick out ground targets, which is harder at 900 knots then you might imagine. It's meant to operate in airspace without theater air defense present, but against the full complement of nasty air defenses modern mobile cavalry divisions muster- SA-9s, ZSU-23s, MANPADs, the works. (Incidentally, an environment that's suicide for an ACU-130.)

All Sukhoi is contending is that this niche no longer exists, or is likely to exist, on a scale that justifies an aircraft made for it. And/or attack helos are more suited to it.

Now you can disagree with her on this, with good arguments- there's a low-key screaming match underway in the armed services on this very topic (there always is,) but she isn't exactly in herpaderp territory here. Apply some fucking brainmeats to this, please.