Tirak

The affect is very clearly very different, and to continue to use pictures of a Tandem Warhead and a HEAT shell in your previous post and claiming them to be examples of an APDSFS penetrator is disingenuous at best.

Got a source on that because the only confirmation I get that your spoilered picture is an APFSDS round is a single post on the Warthunder forums, whereas every other one with a link to that picture clearly calls it a shaped cahrge... https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZiv-UHseSgVCiZR6bYQ-Jxu5ALE2is3zy1t2wChDoYIAa9ebe9JhQF8CA3WVtuDeRR5muSMzgV1O1Zl3n0Mrghc4I6fbDDMKCNLyPZFGgb0DWkeabPHFLoou9QW8yROaRX2ksENX9dXvSq6PQj6BhQO77EKNQRf00kNNcRnKK9ywGEB6AC_1widcCpo188rSBKsZ-uA8O5yXKByS7Hts8KeXR1XVPrVQ_12nf157mPDKymYQS3rs0KuP8V3EnLmtLQLpgmaqi48jZm3qhXGXselYHjI4VYDt6pexc-GHwzf-vPWN29Y2cdmVHj5-GaG4EgEbXJOEfqGz62uUOa5DnfA5JDZ_1hygiom0SOg7wwGA20kjwW1wBZDBJvkG_12g930uYtpF1rvbskrR1vtKhbf0g3DVHxA96JatPcjZYQLAZjhyfK524YcbGI69YR4cZb_1X2e9_1AR5hzl9eLbwea7mFi6vRClZb_1Y-jhyuBa7nW_1b4YtK8hmjIeZCBTZUdEdI51zS12ahSEXJyWGuIygmTztR1U484jyQr1t56em9Wnxae-WOyqxILydnRsnQ-tzlM52GuV_1Z02B4JVK2OnLyTxIBVTyv2zJW6jNyh-BONx1rm3xZLAAkhUbodb81PCn2TnH2ITofki9Arm9gKMHp_1rTAjaVydkHY7apY1gX1Q7iyYPNVjGQaR5TFj3uFq7XZWAWoFT2LcbKFs4Bgjtk79yCFZzOPuZ2lV9ukB2M7CJIvvmNjLnQJ_1OK3H43Hc-tmFOiUvam_17FP-9OX-5MUQH9f9gcY2HFp51bZxazduJR_1DOTemqTyBPwExP3asMYm0F45alCsZ_1eUzM8Q9kSiMmApWKNiFL38cpK-mJmIHGGXIPjazY8MkXdxQQ-qXm2cbM-WW55s8wTO9Xx24Ssfl7G3YNaUc3LeqmA2TIyvP6QZOGIuXNstPulfUBUjRa-yE3kKAEtko5doV3nZIr3dBhRq4nAYMTTnn0JvIOnKOP4K2IwK4aXD6iUYKpar7-SIEplkhmu9srKoGoUKa2X2hTslgypIsCdKdQdQ0sRZ_16dMPvoIoELo7lbrP29XN1lOPIm-ozuMGu7ordbXvmBRHBzE35VVBebHfpGVJsjnGYkXDqZB-2VXiE5HEkLLzetEOmTdGeWBqEBhjKdXJ3KQeM-vwXouIbOIiWkWEtgGQuSbS0m0b5vH_1JPFgLJ0eUaIXcBn-t-pUVHRyFxAF-Od5OvnQYNAjrr4190ketFRoxUcviv2CDCZ0zdsL0MTV-KsSth7dH0BmftSHAZS85QAznKJyFfeBb2pFYZuxcyMHQ86KRT35jGmE_1X8-CgTnOUGJ0VlhJTjcpkGr90G4LxkVzeTaTMEk7_1ur-vCoMiFDkuUBE3yQw-utSLEM3mWvTGVKmKWHENVn7GMh9lc2r9dBmmGqnwtPCouVNmSU-Uyb5BVpsOpTIsbW3THhIT79zmEGADSN44w_1qQOutOv8ciCJ3Q7Q1z9pt-glWluOgvDn2491pXg9vEoH-a-afBIL9HzNCwObcMGXaYVdkY-Atf3yU6uCSrD2MxRka5b-22xYhdG-AJzO8Yb4UnPGC2s-LMk008ZfxPSkAW0InRCoXzxJTB6PP76BAKKW0K32fAxpe1TbjfM_1R_1KapUSd6UdU6sLI9b0lY2di6QCez1bXL3Kwiu-FCbjHHf_1U-w2scQ8YSMoRQ2dBgdBs4&btnG=Search%20by%20image&hl=en

Except that's not an APFSDS round, that's an 84mm Carl Gustav HEAT 751 Shaped Charge tandem warhead. [ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c76_1413344150]LiveLeak.com - 84mm Shaped Charge Tandem Warhead Slow Motion[/ame]

Hardly an insult with you making grandiose claims about high angle diving attacks on armor at 300 meters being a viable option. As to a "modern" battlefield, you don't base your armed forces to fight poorly equipped rebels, and you don't design weapons to fight today's war, you design them to fight tomorrows war and you design them to fight actually dangerous opponents. To do otherwise would be criminally short sighted, and if you want to claim that the future of war is only ever going to be insurgencies and the A-10 is a cost effective approach, then the proper way to demolish your argument is to point out the myriad of cheaper COIN aircraft. Your argument loses based on future potentialities, and based on the environment you champion as the forward face of war...

I still think it's too early to include aircraft like the Pucara into the lineup. It serves no multiplayer role, and it runs counter to the current "era" of aircraft being included. The marching back of the clock on what era multiplayer fights in has already begun, servers are doing 80s nights more and more with reduced loadouts on the F-15s and SU-27s. The clock got ticked back more by the MiG-21 and the F-5E. Making aircraft that can exist on the same scale in terms of air combat as those two makes much more sense than a turboprop light attack aircraft. An F-100D, an F-8, supersonic capable aircraft that straddle the Gunfighter/Missile age satisfies the "Not so complex" requirement, while also fitting in with the more capable modules. Add in to the fact that these aircraft later in life often transitioned into a ground attack role, means they fit in and help generate a stepping stone for other aircraft in their range where they would be dominant dogfighters, while also fitting into slightly further ahead eras.

Lol, my bad, I know a couple of Lynn's and they're both women :P The shot wasn't just from the rear, it went in through the dust grills, that sort of shot is what we refer to as the "Golden BB". Theoretically, nearly any weapon system is potentially destroyable should a single BB be in the right spot, at the right time, however realistically, the odds of such a thing happening are statistically impossible. The altitude the A-10 would have to fly at to achieve the proper angle and the range required to ensure a proper hit would be so outrageous, that basic safety procedure would preclude the firing pass anyway, thus, it would never happen.

Except you haven't demonstrated this. Your example was the M47 Patton, a tank used in the 50s and a contemporary to the T-55, which is the tank the GAU-8 was meant to go up against. You have made assumptions on more modern tanks extrapolating based on information about those earlier tanks with their inferior metallurgy, but you've got no actual supporting evidence that an A-10 can destroy a tank with modern armor using its gun. Please provide examples including slant ranges and type of armor engaged. EDIT: Even your article with Taylor makes assumptions based on armor thickness with no actual numbers to back it up, and also points out that even by his estimate of 10 percent, the only time that the A-10 could actually have any effect at all on that would be in a 90 degree dive, something not ever done.

To add to Rofl's points, I said modern armor as well as "Modern" armor from 1977. The Pattons were a WWII design, placing them more of a contemporary to the T-55, which is the tank that the GAU-8 can operate against, however to call it modern armor in terms of tank design even by 1977 would be an extremely tenuous statement as the US retired the design just prior to 1960 and used them as targets from then on.

Maneuver kill won't happen, penetrators don't blow off the track, they put a neat little hole in it. It's not getting through the armor, and spalling isn't something tanks are vulnerable to anymore. A 30mm cannon is worthless against modern armor, it was worthless against modern armor back in 1977. There's a reason why the Mavericks were included, because the gun doesn't kill tanks, it attacks IFVs, of which the USSR had a lot of. GAU-8 =/= Tankbuster, and no advocate for the A-10 who knows the system he defends will ever attempt to claim otherwise.

The A-10's gun hasn't been effective against tanks since the plane started flying. The only tank it'll actually punch through reliably is a T-55 and a few specific spots on early T-62s. The A-10 kills tanks with its Mavericks, and uses the gun on light armored APC. Haven't you seen the A-10 colouring book? It pops upon here every few months. http://imgur.com/a/SD8Ew

LN is making their own. It should be the AIM-54C (ECCM)(Sealed) based on the timeframe, but you never know.

The requirements for the A-10 were drawn up in an age before guided weapons like we use today, before targeting pods, before GPS before datalinks, before pretty much modern air combat. It was designed based on concepts that hadn't been refined since the Germans were divebombing Russian artillery pieces with JU-87 bombers. Times changed, technology improved and now your dinosaur of a plane is as effective as an M163 gun carrier. Sure, there was a time when filling the air with lead was a really great way of doing a job, but now there are superior alternatives, and ones that fulfill roles that the dinosaur can't. You for some reason seem to be incapable of understanding the change in battlefield weapons, which very much reminds me of WWI generals faced with new weapons and innovations. They refused to change to suit them and millions died.

Because Iran doesn't operate the A-10.

Modern US Harriers can mount a Litening pod on a BRU-36 rack on the centerline of the aircraft. Will you be modeling this capability?

Grasping at straws already? As you yourself note, this issue only affects the F-35B, the Marine version replacing the AV-8B Harrier. The SDB issue affects the SDB II, the issue has been known about for quite some time. The fix is literally moving two lines a few inches over to the side to prevent conflict. This change is well within budget and will not delay the program as this upgrade has been planned for to coincide with SDB II integration with the airframe and other changes to the bays that may be required. They opted to do it this way so that they'd only have to make this change once, rather than several times in piecemeal fashion.

I was wondering when the RT brigade would arrive. :megalol:

You're right, no amount of of gun pods will make the F-35 as good at doing Close Air Support as the A-10. The advanced sensors and precision munitions will.

By your logic, America needs to scrap MBTs because they're not optimized for any one role but rather designed to fulfill the roles of Scout Tank, Light Tanks, Medium Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Tank Destroyers ect. We also have to scrap IFVs because they're not tanks but they're not optimized for troop transport. We have to scrap carbines because they're not optimized for range like a sniper rifle, but also not optimized for close quarters like a pistol. As I'm writing this, I'm amused to recall that the M1 had similar criticisms heaped upon it by the likes of Pierre Sprey, the patron saint of the anti F-35 movement. I think we all know where that went. "The F-35 isn't designed for one role and therefore sucks" argument falls to pieces once you actually look at how much the military prides versatility. When Air Force tankers started hauling Probe and Drogue extensions to their Boom refuelers, was this a failure of the Air Force because they weren't operating a Probe and Drogue only tanker? The F-35 will perform CAS, in a different way, but the mission will still get done. We changed the weapons when we changed the platform so that we could be more flexible in how we employed it. The A-10 flies low and slow because when it was built, that was the only way to do CAS, this is no longer the case. In the words of a very good friend serving overseas right now "We don't really care what platform brings it, just as long as when we call it in, it kills the enemy." Appealing to the good feeling in your gut when you hear that cannon firing isn't a justifiable reason to keep around the platform that was designed when precision guided weapons meant a 1000lb dart guided by a dude looking at a flare and fiddling with a joystick. Times have changed. We can either change with them, or reap the harvest sown by allowing our personal warm and fuzzies to dictate military policy.

'Cause the Cold War ended in the 90s and so Congress has gotten all tightfisted about spending on the military.

Daytime SCUD hunting, I.E. hunting trucks dispersed in the middle of the desert, Sead in the form of going after early warning radars, something Apache's did as well, because an early warning radar isn't a SAM sight. For those, we sent in F-16s and F-4s. I find it interesting that according to your own chard, F-16s participated in vastly more sorties and suffered less than half the losses per sortie, and despite flying so many more sorties, lost fewer planes absolutely than the A-10. Again, see my above comment. F-16s and F-4Gs both suffered lower losses, and their targets were specifically SAM sights and well defended bunkers, throwing themselves into the teeth of the engagement. In fact, according to your chart, the only strike aircraft in the USAF the A-10 beats out is the Strike Eagle, which suffered only 2 losses but sortied far fewer times, thus inflating their losses in comparison. It also beats out a single AC-130 shot down, and a Sparkvark who flew into terrain on the first night because despite having near air dominance, the 'Vark was still getting lit up from a MiG-25. What the chart does tell me, is that A-10s, sent up against positions determined to be of minimal threat to them, suffered twice as many losses because they had to fly low and slow to mix it up. None of this changes Horners comments, who specifically stated that A-10s were pulled from areas where it was likely to meet resistance.

A-16 failed because the gun got so hot it torched the inside of the fuselage and burned out the systems there. It was never produced in numbers. It also never had nearly the same sort of sensor capabilities the F-35 has. Your complaint has been the F-35 isn't tough enough to play down low and slow in a gunfight, and with modern PGMs, we say yeah, it doesn't have to thanks to better sensors, putting far more information at the pilots fingertips, allowing him to make better, more accurate decisions.

A-10s being yanked away from Air Defense? Gonna sound like a broken record here, buuuut, Operation Desert Storm. Unless of course you're going to tell me once again that the Lieutenant General is a lying prick again.

The SDB(FLM) was designed specifically for the scenario you've just described, and do so without placing the aircraft in the grip of anyone aiming up at the sky. Perhaps you should actually educate yourself on what sort of "fancy gizmos" you deride so thoughtlessly.