RoflSeal

You forgot about the San Carlos FOB http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/harrier-forward-operating-base-falkland-islands/

Is Toilet bomb going to be one of the loadouts?

Above the line is not structural limit. Limit is 9G as shown on graph. Line represents max sustained G in a turn, in other words above that, aircraft will lose energy in the turn.

^Same issues^

Tried both in open beta and release versions

No that graph is for aircraft trimmed FOR 0.6 mach. You could have the aircraft trimmed for 0.8 mach if you wanted

Yep radar is working for me as well. I also lost IFF, locking something with the radar beam and external sounds though as well

Yeah, all these new generation trainers look ridiculously similar.

You are seriously deluded aren't you? Do you know why they are flying 150ft of the deck in those simulated attack runs? Because above that, there was a high chance of them getting chewed up. That's the problem of doing an attack from a higher dive angle Just because we have been fighting snackbars in low AA threat enviroments so that the A-10s can do their nice 30 degree dives for the past 10 years, does not mean that combined arms is obsolete. You do realize that A-10s were withdrawn from attacking Republican units and their T-72s because they suffered heavy losses?

Side armour of modern tanks is still steel. Composite armour is placed on the front hull and front turret and sides. Some tanks have composite skirts placed on the first 1/3 of the sides to protect crew compartment from 30 degree side shots. Most Modern tanks have their protection optimized for the -+30 degree off their front

Pretty much only you accepts that a GAU-8 is a lethal weapon to a tank. An attack run at a 3.8 degree dive, you might as well treat it as ground fire. No way are you going to penetrate the roof armour. It's not about lethality, it's about effectiveness A Panzerschrek can probably disable/destroy an Abrams (after all 200mm is more then enough for the engine side and rear hull armor), but it has a range of 150m if you are lucky. Howover an AT14 Kornet is a way better way to destroy an Abrams, it is a threat to it from the front, and up to and over 5km away with high accuracy. Same comparison with GAU-8 vs any PGM.

I think you can find all over the internet as well of talk that SB armor schemes pictures being outdated. http://www.leecosteel.com/mil-a-46100-steel-plate.html http://www.leecosteel.com/mil-a12560-steel-plate.html http://www.leecosteel.com/mil-a46177-steel-plate.html Furthermore, hardness of the M1 Abrams' steel is even harder then T-62. Harder the armor, keeping the same brittleness, increases armour protection. Considering advances in metallurgy, and further advances like triple hardness steel with over 600 BHN, I would think that 50mm on 1960s steel would perform worse then 1980s-90s and 2000s steel.

16mm of armor on a 3.8 degree dive gives a line of sight thickness of 240mm Are you being this dense on purpose? It's not only that the A-10 is ineffective at reliably killing at tank, more importantly in the modern environment, it will be impossible to get that gun close enough to do anything anyway.

Firstly, I don't get how you should be able to shoot down onto the hull roof armor from a 3.8 degree dive. Secondly, doing the sort of attack run described will make you mincemeat from 30mm Tunguska, Pantsirs and MANPADs.

M47 has worse side armor then the T-62 in raw thickness, worse profiling for the side turret and steel that offers worse protection due it having a lower hardness. Firstly T-62 has a side armor thickness of 80mm throughout. M47 side armor is 76mm over the crew compartment and 51mm over the engine compartment Side turret of the M47 is flat and 64mm thick. Side turret of the T-62 is rounded starting at 122mm at the base and thining off to ~50mm to the turret roof as the angle increases keeping a constant LOS of ~120mm. This gives double the turret armour. Steel of the M47 was garbage, 210BHN throughout vs 270-290BHN for T-62 cast turret and 270-350BHN for rolled plates (harder for thinner plates) This means the T-62 steel offers 20-37% more protection for the same thickness.

Why are you inferring it as Tungsten? PGU-14 was DU.

Found this little snippet on the A-10's gun vs M47 and T-62 tanks More here

Hasn't AGM-154 JSOW which has a launch range of 12-70nm, basically replaced CBU-97?

About 400hp difference max

And what would you do to ensure to make this 3rd option the cheapest option especially considering the already sunk costs of the F-35?

First bomber in development, this is worth to keep an eye on. I wish the best for you guys.

To maintain the legacy aircraft is estimated to cost cost $4 trillion from 2015-2065, about 4x more then the F-35.

When the F-35s flew to Oshkosh, figures given were 5000lbs of fuel burned in 2hrs 10 minutes at 270KIAS in the 900 mile flight.

Matey, its a 30mm cannon, and there is 2 of them.

>Implying this exists.