Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #200 on: April 16, 2014, 11:58:05 AM »
The "cannon" on it literally makes up the plane itself. And no, most modern tanks would fall to it.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #201 on: April 16, 2014, 01:19:52 PM »
As for the A-10, it's an expensive old plane that is quickly coming to the end of its service life. It found a niche in the CAS role, but in a real war it would be almost entirely useless.
That's what they said just before the first Gulf War.

The Gulf War was not a real war.
Tell that to what used to be Iraq's army.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #202 on: April 16, 2014, 08:28:36 PM »
The "cannon" on it literally makes up the plane itself. And no, most modern tanks would fall to it.

It's hard to say as the details of the armour on most modern tanks is classified or not disclosed. Most have enough armour on the side and front to withstand 30mm rounds, uranium tipped or not. The engine and the top are generally a lot thinner and less armoured. So it really depends on a number of factors, like pilot skill and the movement of the target. Granted, an A-10 won't use just the cannon to kill a tank, as they have much more effective weapons attached to the wings.

As for the A-10, it's an expensive old plane that is quickly coming to the end of its service life. It found a niche in the CAS role, but in a real war it would be almost entirely useless.
That's what they said just before the first Gulf War.

The Gulf War was not a real war.
Tell that to what used to be Iraq's army.

That's really got nothing to do with the A-10.


Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #203 on: April 16, 2014, 10:58:09 PM »
*aeroplane crashes into building*

OMG What a surprise! Where did that plane come from? OMG I am so surprised because all aircraft are accounted for. OR SO I THOUGHT. That is why I am surprised.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #204 on: April 17, 2014, 02:40:51 AM »
It's hard to say as the details of the armour on most modern tanks is classified or not disclosed. Most have enough armour on the side and front to withstand 30mm rounds, uranium tipped or not. The engine and the top are generally a lot thinner and less armoured. So it really depends on a number of factors, like pilot skill and the movement of the target. Granted, an A-10 won't use just the cannon to kill a tank, as they have much more effective weapons attached to the wings.

There is no vehicle currently in combat operations that can withstand direct fire from a GAU-8. Congress is thinking about making the A-10 "go away" because they have no money left, and that is really all there is to it.

Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #205 on: April 17, 2014, 08:00:33 AM »
It's hard to say as the details of the armour on most modern tanks is classified or not disclosed. Most have enough armour on the side and front to withstand 30mm rounds, uranium tipped or not. The engine and the top are generally a lot thinner and less armoured. So it really depends on a number of factors, like pilot skill and the movement of the target. Granted, an A-10 won't use just the cannon to kill a tank, as they have much more effective weapons attached to the wings.

There is no vehicle currently in combat operations that can withstand direct fire from a GAU-8.

Well, that's debatable. Front armour on tanks has always been designed to withstand rounds from enemy tanks, at least since WWII, and tank rounds have always been larger than 30mm. So 30mm rounds probably aren't going to do a whole lot against the more armoured parts of modern tanks. Although the A-10 has 1250 rounds, so it probably has more than enough to destroy any MBT given the time.

Congress is thinking about making the A-10 "go away" because they have no money left, and that is really all there is to it.

It's getting more and more expensive to run as the airframe gets older, and as I said, it would not fare well in a real war. It's set to be replaced when the F-35 finally comes into service.

*

Offline pilot172

  • *
  • Posts: 84
  • Thunder down under
    • View Profile
Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #206 on: April 17, 2014, 11:58:02 AM »
you think that someone would notice all the equipment needed to reinforce a runway going to a tiny island around where mh370 went missing and jetfuel and parts getting shipped there then a dirty big plane and all the activity I think everyone underestimates how quickly these sorts of things are picked up on and remember all the 'telecommunication' satellites ae there now watching so theyd see a plane like a 777 on an island
1 in 10 suicides apparently could be stopped if someone smiled or made the person happy for a minute so its my goal in life to make as many people as happy as possible...also QUEENSLANDER!!!!

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #207 on: April 17, 2014, 01:37:08 PM »
As for the A-10, it's an expensive old plane that is quickly coming to the end of its service life. It found a niche in the CAS role, but in a real war it would be almost entirely useless.
That's what they said just before the first Gulf War.

The Gulf War was not a real war.
Tell that to what used to be Iraq's army.

That's really got nothing to do with the A-10.
Incorrect.
The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces, making it by far the most effective aircraft of the war.[5] A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #208 on: April 17, 2014, 09:44:22 PM »
Incorrect.
The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces, making it by far the most effective aircraft of the war.[5] A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon.

Yes, because the Iraqi military had literally no air force. There were a couple of dog fights throughout the entire war, but the Allies had air superiority nearly the entire time. When you've got air superiority, the A-10 is a great jet. But when the enemy is organised, has AAA and an air force worth a damn, the A-10 is in trouble. It's slow, it's not stealthy, and despite being more armoured than an F-16, it cannot withstand heavy AAA fire. It's like the AC-130, cool as hell but only if you're not going to get shot at.

It was designed for European battlefields in the cold war, a scenario that is no longer relevant anywhere around the world, and even in that scenario it was expected to get shot down regularly.

Rama Set

Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #209 on: April 17, 2014, 11:57:08 PM »
Incorrect.
The A-10 was used in combat for the first time during the Gulf War in 1991, destroying more than 900 Iraqi tanks, 2,000 other military vehicles and 1,200 artillery pieces, making it by far the most effective aircraft of the war.[5] A-10s also shot down two Iraqi helicopters with the GAU-8 cannon.

Yes, because the Iraqi military had literally no air force. There were a couple of dog fights throughout the entire war, but the Allies had air superiority nearly the entire time. When you've got air superiority, the A-10 is a great jet. But when the enemy is organised, has AAA and an air force worth a damn, the A-10 is in trouble. It's slow, it's not stealthy, and despite being more armoured than an F-16, it cannot withstand heavy AAA fire. It's like the AC-130, cool as hell but only if you're not going to get shot at.

It was designed for European battlefields in the cold war, a scenario that is no longer relevant anywhere around the world, and even in that scenario it was expected to get shot down regularly.

Regardless, it is true that the A-10 was an effective weapon in the first Gulf War.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #210 on: April 18, 2014, 02:14:32 AM »
Yes, because the Iraqi military had literally no air force. There were a couple of dog fights throughout the entire war, but the Allies had air superiority nearly the entire time. When you've got air superiority, the A-10 is a great jet. But when the enemy is organised, has AAA and an air force worth a damn, the A-10 is in trouble. It's slow, it's not stealthy, and despite being more armoured than an F-16, it cannot withstand heavy AAA fire.

Are we talking about the same A-10?  One of the primary design objectives of the A-10 was survivability.  Why do you think that the pilot sits in a titanium bathtub?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #211 on: April 18, 2014, 03:11:10 AM »
Yes, because the Iraqi military had literally no air force. There were a couple of dog fights throughout the entire war, but the Allies had air superiority nearly the entire time. When you've got air superiority, the A-10 is a great jet. But when the enemy is organised, has AAA and an air force worth a damn, the A-10 is in trouble. It's slow, it's not stealthy, and despite being more armoured than an F-16, it cannot withstand heavy AAA fire.

Are we talking about the same A-10?  One of the primary design objectives of the A-10 was survivability.  Why do you think that the pilot sits in a titanium bathtub?


Survivability in the sense that it can fly with 1 engine, with an elevated and heavily armoured cockpit and airframe. It will still go down if it loses a wing to a missile. It certainly couldn't fly against modern AA tanks like these. This is why the F-35 will be a better jet, it is capable of both Wild Weasel missions and CAS.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 7849
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #212 on: April 18, 2014, 04:18:53 AM »
Survivability in the sense that it can fly with 1 engine, with an elevated and heavily armoured cockpit and airframe. It will still go down if it loses a wing to a missile. It certainly couldn't fly against modern AA tanks like these. This is why the F-35 will be a better jet, it is capable of both Wild Weasel missions and CAS.
Sure, anything that goes up in the air can be shot down.  The A-10 was designed to get down and dirty and take a beating.  How much of a beating is the F-35 designed to take?  What happens if an F-35 loses an engine.  Oops, it only has one.  Will the F-35 be able to survive AAA, let alone the loss of a wing?  I doubt it.  The F-35 is trying to do many things while the A-10 just does one thing: kill armor, and it's very good at that job. 

BTW, how many F-35s (of any variant) are currently deployed?  How much does one F-35 cost vs an A-10?
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. -- Charles Darwin

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #213 on: April 18, 2014, 04:29:06 AM »
Survivability in the sense that it can fly with 1 engine, with an elevated and heavily armoured cockpit and airframe. It will still go down if it loses a wing to a missile. It certainly couldn't fly against modern AA tanks like these. This is why the F-35 will be a better jet, it is capable of both Wild Weasel missions and CAS.
Sure, anything that goes up in the air can be shot down.  The A-10 was designed to get down and dirty and take a beating.  How much of a beating is the F-35 designed to take?  What happens if an F-35 loses an engine.  Oops, it only has one.  Will the F-35 be able to survive AAA, let alone the loss of a wing?  I doubt it.  The F-35 is trying to do many things while the A-10 just does one thing: kill armor, and it's very good at that job. 

BTW, how many F-35s (of any variant) are currently deployed?  How much does one F-35 cost vs an A-10?

That's the point, an F-35 wouldn't be shot down because it wouldn't be spotted. It has a smaller cannon with less rounds, and it flies faster and can't loiter as long, but it's more than capable of carrying the missiles used against tanks (which are the most effective anti-tank weapons anyway).

It's not widely deployed yet due to the constant delays in the JSF program, and yeah it costs a lot more than an A-10. But 1 airframe does the job of multiple planes, and every A-10 lost in a conflict would be irreplaceable. It's also becoming more expensive to fly as time goes on, due to the maintenance on the airframes (some of which are getting really old).

Thork

Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #214 on: April 19, 2014, 11:42:04 PM »
The F-35 will be used for airshows and football games. Its isn't going to see much combat. Its too expensive.

Want to drop a bomb? Use a drone. Want stealth for reconnaissance? Use a drone. Want a cheap aircraft that can fly 24 hour missions? Use a drone. Want something with low maintenance and fuel costs? Use a drone. Want air superiority? Use tanks to secure enemy airfields. F-35 isn't your first choice for anything.

Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #215 on: April 20, 2014, 12:51:34 AM »
The F-35 will be used for airshows and football games. Its isn't going to see much combat. Its too expensive.

Want to drop a bomb? Use a drone. Want stealth for reconnaissance? Use a drone. Want a cheap aircraft that can fly 24 hour missions? Use a drone. Want something with low maintenance and fuel costs? Use a drone. Want air superiority? Use tanks to secure enemy airfields. F-35 isn't your first choice for anything.

Yeah that's why they're being fielded in the hundreds by a bunch of nations in the West. Drones are certainly going to play a big part of warfare in the future, but the F-35 is going to be one of the big work horses in Allied airforces.

Also, they don't use drones for air superiority. That's what the F-22 is for.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #216 on: April 20, 2014, 01:47:01 AM »
The reality is that there will never be another large war with a developed nation. Too many nations with nuclear bombs that are more willing to turn themselves and others into smoking craters before giving up any land. Conventional weapons will only ever be used against countries that probably couldn't defend against any technology past the Cold War and that have no nuclear weaponry. Lockheed should just manufacture updated F-16s, rather than mugging the government for more money. Any country the F-22 and F-35 is useful against would never have a F-22 or F-35 used against them.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2014, 01:49:09 AM by Irushwithscvs »

Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #217 on: April 20, 2014, 03:45:04 AM »
The reality is that there will never be another large war with a developed nation. Too many nations with nuclear bombs that are more willing to turn themselves and others into smoking craters before giving up any land. Conventional weapons will only ever be used against countries that probably couldn't defend against any technology past the Cold War and that have no nuclear weaponry. Lockheed should just manufacture updated F-16s, rather than mugging the government for more money. Any country the F-22 and F-35 is useful against would never have a F-22 or F-35 used against them.
What about the developed European nations vs Russia? If they step in to defend the Ukraine wouldn't that be developed nations against each other. And if China joins Russia a saints Europe? They both stand to gain geopolitical advantage over the EU in a war and have already been doing joint naval maneuvers. Russia has the land and China's got the people. Both are fully capable of standing up and, frankly, I believe Russia has a slight air advantage over the US, although both sides have plenty of surface to air weapons, putting a fight for the air a little off to the side.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8569
    • View Profile
Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #218 on: April 20, 2014, 03:55:54 AM »
What about the developed European nations vs Russia? If they step in to defend the Ukraine wouldn't that be developed nations against each other. And if China joins Russia a saints Europe? They both stand to gain geopolitical advantage over the EU in a war and have already been doing joint naval maneuvers. Russia has the land and China's got the people. Both are fully capable of standing up and, frankly, I believe Russia has a slight air advantage over the US, although both sides have plenty of surface to air weapons, putting a fight for the air a little off to the side.

There will never be a Europe vs Russia conventional war. Ukraine wasn't part of NATO and hardly counts as a developed nation, their hardware is still Cold War era. If Europe felt too threatened by Russia or China the nukes would start flying. Like I said, there will never be a conventional war between developed nations ever again. There will be proxy wars, but there will never be all out war between large developed nations.

Re: What happened to flight MH370?
« Reply #219 on: April 20, 2014, 04:18:23 AM »
I highly doubt that any country would use a nuke again. We all know the outcome of a nuclear explosion and I would be willing to bet that those in power are smart enough to know how tegu would be treated if they ever did use a nuke. The idea of a country using nukes is a little boys dream of power and a nationalist mentality. Politically, nukes are a bad idea. If someone in power knew they would loose it all with a nuke, they wouldn't risk it. Especially not America.