Tirak

I'd rather drop the 287,000 dollar bomb once then have put the pilot and airframe in a position it didn't need to be in. Your argument quite frankly is along the lines of "You can pick up a rock off the ground for free OR spend a few hundred dollars to give them rifles to achieve the same result." Not entirely sure what you're getting at but I'm game, let's see where this goes :music_whistling: Yes, it took several days and man strikes with both cruise missiles, stealth fighters and multi role strikers to blast open the Iraqi air defense. During that time, A-10s were unable to effectively perform their duties as they could not operate safely, and were pulled off the front line to attack tertiary units where the air defense wasn't a threat. Now the Iraqi SAM threat was no joke, as our fearless F-16 and F-4G pilots will no doubt attest, as several of their number were shot down running the emissions that were needed to open up the area so that the low/slow A-10s could actually start doing things. Also, we didn't know 'right where they were'. We knew about where they'd be, but there was always a chance of a mobile system popping up in a place we didn't expect. I don't know if you know this, but that's what makes mobile systems dangerous, they can be moved around to attack from positions you weren't counting on. The Soviet Union produced a number of these systems which are both very lethal, and relatively easy to use. One of these was recently used by Ukrainian Rebels to shoot down a passenger air craft. Now of course that isn't an example of engaging a military target, but it does indicate how easy it is for such weapons to fall into non state actors hands. Another example of this is during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, where the US provided the Mujaheddin with a great number of Stinger missile launchers, which were used to devastating effect against the low and relatively slow flying Mi-24 "Hind" helicopters, which were also armored against ground fire and designed for close in support. I hope you're following along, because the point of all that means that a static battle line, the kind in which you can anticipate enemy SAM positions doesn't necessarily have to exist, for these weapons to play a role. Furthermore, when fighting an actor who is so incredibly far behind in military power, they will often adopt unorthodox tactics, such as during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Iraqi forces, knowing they had inferior equipment and stood no chance in a straight on battle with US Tanks, laid low, waited for the armor to pass them by, then attacked their lightly defended supply convoys. In this instance, the lightly defended supply convoy is the A-10, waltzing in low and slow, and getting destroyed because a few guys in a cave were hiding Strelas, or something bigger with tracks hidden in a cave. See my example concerning the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviet's held absolute air superiority, and shoulder fired weapons ended up destroying a great number of their armored low altitude CAS birds. Emu's taken care of the "spinning rims on a humvee" comment. Exactly, the only difference between us is that I plan for a competent enemy, whereas you are convinced the only enemy that can possibly exist is an illiterate farmer wielding an AK-47 and maybe having a DsHK on a pickup truck. Your style of thinking is rooted in a great deal of tradition. A tradition of horrific losses on the side of those who refused to believe war could operate outside their expectations.

Not to disagree with your list, but a point of order considering the AI aircraft on it. If I'm not mistaken, this comes from Polychop and from VEAO's A-4 fiasco, but the level of simulation affects the type of agreement you have to reach with the company. Detailed systems modeling leads into certain awkward areas when it comes to protecting company trademarks, and so an AI aircraft could easily be implemented due to a lack of detailed systems modeling, but a full DCS level module could not because the level of simulation goes above and beyond the normal agreements they make for licensing out the image or name. Now this could all be (edited), but that's what we were led to believe based on VEAO's A-4 fiasco, and from Polychop's BO-105 negotiations, if I'm recalling correctly.

Where an F-35 pilot looks, so too does his sensors, and his sensors can see through certain kinds of weather. In these circumstances, an SDB II with it's millimetric radar, which can see through weather, and the FLM package fills the role easily, with much less risk. The Pilot identifies the target using his 360 degree view, focuses his targeting systems on it, achieves an accurate detailed picture through weather, and employs a weapon that operates through that same weather without issue. The SDB II with FLM package fulfills your requirement for accuracy and limited lethal radius in order to operate close to troops. Precision Guided weapons started life in order to help kill bridges, they will continue to evolve in order to help protect the soldier by being able to hit closer and more accurately to friendly positions in order to provide the pin point CAS he may need.

I fail to see how it is not applicable in any situation where you'd call in a gun run. The weapon is deliberately designed to have a smaller radius of effect so that it can be used in urban centers and close to troops. In fact, it can be even more accurate than a gun run thanks to it being a precision guided munition, and not subject to the normal inaccuracies of using a gun. Use it in conjunction with a Laser Guidance kit for our SDBs, which we already are using, and you've got yourself what is essentially a laser guided gunrun without putting the aircraft in harms way, that can be aborted up until the last second if needed. And even assuming the A-10 gets it, that just brings us back to the fact that the A-10 can't do anything else except the close support role in a permissive environment.

Licensing.

Small Diameter Bomb Focused Leathality Munition has you covered.

Not arguing with you on that point, but what I'm saying is that the others can do strafing runs with their guns, an A-10 can't run a CAP or do long range strikes on a defended position, or SEAD, ect. ect. ect.

All three have a gun and strafe programs on their avionics systems, all three can perform the role, the A-10 however can't fill any of the other roles of the other three aircraft.

Except fighters can do low level strafing runs if required. F-16s and F-18s get called in to do them. It's just they have far better tools at their disposal more often. It's not that the A-10 does low and slow better than everyone else, it's that the A-10 only does low and slow, which when you're putting it like that, you may as well call in the Apaches who do low and slow better than anyone on the block, AC-130s who hang around forever, or call in all that wonderful artillery we've spent so long developing.

Why use A-10s at all if i can just fly AC-130s for longer loiter times, since that is according to you, the most important judge of an aircraft. B-1, B-2, B-52=/=A10, I'm not quite sure where you got that mixed up... :doh: Of course pilots can get extended, however there is a measurable loss of pilot efficiency past a certain point in the air. This can be extended by removing stress, such as a better cockpit layout, better automation or easier to use sensors. It's the reason why aircraft like the Su-34 have a kitchenette in back. Do please try to keep up. Could be, hasn't. Just like an F-14D could fire AMRAAMs, they just weren't set up for it :lol: Hilariously and thoroughly debunked by others and the quote of the US Air Force General. :smilewink: It's far easier to get someone on target, when everybody knows what they're looking at, the 360 coverage provided by the F-35s sensors make it far easier to figure out what's around you, the combined with the targeting system itself, it can get itself on target with far less hassle and from far greater distances. Otherwise we get situations like the aforementioned friendly fire incident, where everybody is talking about something else because nobody knows where each other is looking. Several things were pointed out as for the reason that the test happened the way it did, and while yes, lack of the advanced radar absorbent materials, the full work up of weaponry and the full programming of the avionics computer, none of this really matters. Lockheed is 'spinning' it that way because explaining to Joe Idiot the difference between testing the limits of the current CLAW program and a full on dogfight is like trying bail water with a sieve, so they chose to focus on the things Joe Idiot could understand, such as the fact that this fight will never occur. Now I could go on, but someone earlier has already mentioned the pilot opinions of the bird, such as 'It's an F-18 with Turbo', not a direct quote, so I'll leave it to them. Previous generation helmet used for testing. :doh: You're gonna have to parse this one for me because to me this pretty clearly reads as you don't seem to think a mid air collision and combat damage can be considered as comparable. :huh: I notice that anyone who says anything good about the F-35 is a Lockheed shill, anyone who says anything bad about the A-10 is a stupid prick no matter what position they used to hold such as... Lieutenant General, US Central Air Command... interesting no?

It will be performed in different ways, with more accurate sensors and PGMs, the battlefield is changing, thus my quip about dropping bricks from Biplanes. This is flatly untrue. There are more than enough TGP videos on youtube from both fast movers and aircraft like the AC-130 that very clearly show the ability of a targeting pod to locate and differentiate individuals. The primary limiting factor is the resolution of the screen being used, as demonstrated by pilots remarking that they were far better able to see detail in their post mission briefings because the resolution of the screens they were looking at was much better than their MFD, something EODAS, as well as the customization screen in the F-35 helps to mitigate. Lieutenant General Charles A. Horner, Central Air Forces Commander: http://mackenzieproductions.com/Gen._Horner.html Emphasis mine. The F-35 was designed from the offset to help mitigate the natural issues that come with Low Observable aircraft in terms of maintenance. The difficult to maintain radar coatings are baked right into the aircraft skin, as as much of the aircraft as possible has been built "One Deep" to allow easy access to as much of the aircraft as possible to keep it going. The Marine Corps has already declared IOC, the plane flies, and fights already in Marine testing exercises and has participated in the Green Flag operations, where it proved to be extremely effective at fighting engagements under unfavorable conditions. The A-10 has 11 hard points. 1 takes a TGP, 1 takes a sidewinder rail, 1 takes an ECM pod. An A-10 therefore has 8 hardpoints. An F-35 has 6 hardpoints slated for ground attack weaponry, with an additional 4 directed to Air to Air only weapons. The internal hardpoints are capable of carrying 8 SDBs all on their own. Now before you jump off pointing out that you can mount TERs on the A-10s hardpoints, this is not 8 dumb fall bombs, this is 8 PGMs, with a flight radius of 30 miles, and we haven't even started hanging things on the wings. The ability to carry weapons is not a weakness of the F-35. Nullify, no, reduce yes. However, this represents a capability the A-10 does not have at all. An F-35 wishing to provide CAS in a contested environment brings 8 PGMs to the table, an A-10 does not even walk onto that table. In an environment the A-10 can operate, the F-35 can operate with a greater combat load. I've no intention of doing so. EDIT For Bob: 2 things. 1, despite its shortcomings in a modern battlespace, the aircraft has served with distinction throughout the years and is worth of respect, please do not refer to the old war horse as a "Gheyten", it is demeaning to an airframe which despite my opposition to is worthy of respect and praise. 2. The Air Force cannot afford a highly diverse fleet anymore, the funds do not exist. They cannot keep the A-10 because Congress will not fund it.

Then let's yank out the middling A-10. If your argument is loiter time, then the AC-130s can out loiter you by many many hours. Furthermore, with aerial refueling assets in a permissive environment, which is the only one the A-10 is capable of operating in, loiter time is effectively pilot endurance time, which the F-35 with its superior ergonomics and easy to use sensor systems better helps compensate for. That's the point, it's a future system moving forward, something the F-35 will have capability to use, and the A-10 does not. Furthermore, LSDBs are already being used off of Strike Eagles, so it's a weapon system already being employed. Operation Desert Storm. A-10s were unable to deal with the old soviet era anti aircraft weapons and suffered an attrition rate so high, they were pulled off the line. Most of their work was filled in for by Apache Gunships, and F-111s with laser guided bombs. The war the A-10 was designed for chewed it up and spat it out. Again, that is the point, you can see individuals and differentiate them. You can see the equipment soldiers are carrying. EODAS is leagues above what you can see. See my response above. Not irrelevant, you're mistaking what it was. The test was to figure out limitations of the control system as programmed at the time, it was not a combat test. To say it was is disingenuous. http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album30/ahf http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/album30/ahd EDIT: Also, to add something, to claim that the F-16 picture i posted earlier, with 6 feet off of its right wing ripped off in a collision is somehow unable to be compared to battle damage, either represents a gross lack of understanding of the forces involved, or an attempt to mislead others.

Now that's some interesting stupidity right there. Speed means on call, also means better able to get into position for additional runs. While the A-10 moseys on around, the F-35 is back in position to strike again. That's what having a decent thrust to weight ratio brings you. 18,000lbs hauled in the F-35, but nice try. Irrelevant eh? SDB II and even the LSDB would like to have an interesting word with your A-10. Weapons advance and become more accurate and lethal. Believe it or not, we no longer drop bricks from planes like we did back during WWI. Fully relevant actually, especially if your enemy isn't an uneducated terrorist in the back of a Toyota Hilux. The moment someone walks out of a cave with a MANPADs, or picks up any of the abandoned old vintage russian AA guns, A-10s have to knock off and let the real strikers in to do their job for them. Allow me to introduce you to DAS, a system that gives the F-35 fantastic resolution in its targeting systems in addition to a hilarious amount of situation awareness. Information is God on the battlefield, and the A-10 might as well be the blind idiot compared to the vast array of powerful sensors the F-35 can bring to the fight. Where the A-10 pilot is looking with his eyes at 5,000 feet and misidentifying targets, the F-35 can sit comfortably up at 15k and use his advanced radar to target any vehicles he might have, or his IR sensors to pick out each and every target, and with those high resolution sensors, figure out who's doing what on the battlespace. But no, go on and tell me how superior your eyes are to a sensor suite capable of reading your liscense plate from 30mi away at 30k feet. Countermeasures mean that when the bad guys point something nasty at the sky, you don't have to leave. I'd say that's pretty damn important to the CAS mission. Still harping on about the War is Boring test eh? Tell me, is it hard to keep that ignorant as to what a CLAW test is, or do you have some kind of wall you bang your head into to forget about reality? ... You can't be this stupid. I refuse to believe someone who claims to have actively served in the military can be so blinded that he can't understand that having a wing blown off by fire and having a wing ripped off when rammed into at several hundred miles per hours by something weighing in at 20 tons is somehow incomparable.

Other Options Include: Both of which play the CAS game better than the A-10.

Well lets go through the short list shall we? Faster Carries a heavier payload Carries greater variety of weapons when deployed Stealth VASTLY Superior sensors (To stop those A-10s shooting up British Convoy problems they've been having) Better countermeasure suite Capable of self defense As for toughness. Pictured here, the glorious A-10, the only aircraft in the airforce capable of taking a hit and flying on: Oh wait...

It doesn't matter. If the A-10 does anything better than the F-35, say, gunnery accuracy, then the A-10 crowd will scream how superior their aircraft is to the F-35, even if it fails in any meaningful category. If the F-35 wins, it's just "teh corrupt airfarce brass who hate teh army". There is literally no point to this competition, the A-10 will be retired, the F-35 will overtake its roles, this changes nothing except waste time and money the Air Force already doesn't have thanks to congress insisting on mandating the Air Force keep the A-10 on hand, but not funding the maintenance nor personnel costs to do so.

Sure, now my friend if you look over here you'll see I have this bridge that I think just might be perfect for you, if you pay in cash, I'll even throw in a steep discount.

Not to be confrontational or nothing, but that puts you at ED's mercy. Now VEAO claims that when ED trickled down their two seater code, it was totally incompatible with their flight models. What's to say EDs radar won't suffer similar problems. LN might be creating extra work for themselves, but at least they'll know exactly how their radar code works, and be able to change it at will... Just sayin.

Any plans to model the Pave Spike pod for self LGB deployment?

If this release follows the pattern of the others, there will be a newsletter announcement about 2 weeks ahead of release, announcing the release, 1 week ahead preorders will open. Mid May is the earliest you should expect the module, and that's only if the announcement happens this Friday.

There's a report post button if you think anyone's breaking forum rules.

I'm not saying that it's logical, quite the opposite in fact. The US has been incredibly irrational concerning the retirement of the Tomcat in how they protect it because of the boogey man of Iran.

If it's not already available it would be a waste of time. The US government reserves the right to protect military secrets. And while I've seen in a few places people who seem to think that because it's old and obsolete and Iran no longer can gain anything from it, those people seem to forget that the US shredded most of its Tomcat fleet when it retired in the 2000s to prevent any possibility of spare parts making it to the Alleycats. The military is a mite paranoid when it comes to Tomcats and Iran.

Seems pretty delayed to me. Also, the past few updates, as part of having some fun with the community, updates have been posted literally within the last few minutes ahead of the international dateline change. It's not a bad joke, keeping in line with the, deserved and you know it, impression that LN announcements are only barely on time if they do come on time. The problem with playing that joke is when you miss those deadlines, and now people are up in Europe at 5 in the morning, because they were hoping to catch the update that didn't get canceled at a more reasonable time, and they can't just shrug it off because it missed a normal update time, because you guys are known for the last 10 minutes game. Cobra, I'm not giving a bollocking for missing this update, shit happens, delays happen, and in software delays can pile up. So long as this project remains ethereal then there's not much sense at getting frustrated when deadlines are missed. But it does irritate me when I see you take the piss on people who are clearly frustrated because of a pattern of behavior you guys demonstrate. You can't say you've been on time for updates, you know that's not true. You're 8 months overdue on the Viggen Update, the March update was posted as originally being Mid March but we all gave you the benefit of the doubt when talking to each other and let it slide to the last minutes of March 31st. But you've blasted right on by Update 2 which now puts 2 updates fully MIA. Viggen: MIA NYE: Last 10 minutes March: Ended up being Late March, again last 10 minutes Pt 2: Now 4 weeks late That's 1.5 out of the last 4 "planned" updates. Now again, I'm pretty chill about it, but you've got to stop treating people who are frustrated like they're talking shit for no reason.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_%28CV-61%29 It may not be the best idea to "fling poo" at people who are so enthusiastic about your product that when you put out a deadline for an update, they stay up hours into the night to see if you're going to pull another last ten minute joke on them, only to have you blow by it... repeatedly... and yet they get excited for it every time. Your die hard fans are the ones most disappointed when you miss an Update Cobra, consider that before you start treating them like lepers.