panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Ok ... that is completely wrong, on every count. In the west? Please do tell about legions of JU 87s effectively reaching the front and the CAS type missions flown. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Still not cheap, it's a very high value asset. We're not going to put them anywhere that it stands a good chance of being intercepted or shot down. Oh, well, ok then. I'll put in a request that the MQs get pulled from the game. Thanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 In the west? Please do tell about legions of JU 87s effectively reaching the front and the CAS type missions flown. Really? That's it? That's your response? *pfft* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Alright now I am confused about which of you is taking which position. And that isn't just the kimchee talking. Please if you are going to argue, put enough info in your reply that I can track what you are arguing for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Really? That's it? That's your response? I think your lack of response is more telling. You can see several attempts where the Germans did attempt to achieve local parity, or did mass aviation on objectives, but it's directed against assets like bridges, assembly areas, and similar targets. The Luftwaffe as a CAS force only operated in the much more permissive eastern AOs. I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion on this, however, if you're just going to pfft I'm going to assume you lack the capability. re: Burke I'm stating the Luftwaffe was generally unable to conduct CAS in the west in the face of Allied air superiority, and when they did conduct strikes it was against rear-area or infrastructure type targets vs CAS missions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Alright now I am confused about which of you is taking which position. And that isn't just the kimchee talking. Please if you are going to argue, put enough info in your reply that I can track what you are arguing for. JonS argues that the US would never deploy the A-10 in the face of modern air defenses, which justifies its exclusion from CMBS. panzer argued that the same line of thought should apply to the Su-25. I mentioned that the MQ-9 is completely defenseless but still made the cut. Now they are arguing about Luftwaffe CAS during WW2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Now they are arguing about Luftwaffe CAS during WW2. Which really means we're like, five seconds out from Godwin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Godwin? What has this got to do with the Norman invasion of England. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Yeah I knew, I was being a smart ass. My usual response when I think the discussion has taken a drastic turn off track. Kimchee is what we need to get back to. I distrust your entire viewpoint based on your inability to appreciate this wonderful taste treat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I didn't exactly hate all of it, the cucumber based stuff was okay, but with korean dining if the question is "should I waste space in my stomach on kimchi or more bulgoggi?" the answer is obvious to any sane person. And don't get me started on Egg and Cheesy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Well yeah bulgoggi would be first choice of course, along with a nice bottle of beer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) panzersaurkrautwerfer, As noted previously, the A-10 has more than 4 x the cannon ammo load and carries a much heavier payload than does the Su-25. Apocal, A truly telling point, especially since drones were explicitly part of the target set for any number of Russian air defense systems. If Reaper et al. can fly, then it logically follows the far less vulnerable (has SA, flares, chaff, can maneuver rapidly) A-10 should be able to. JonS, Since you think panzersaurkrautwerfer is in trouble because I'm supporting his argument, I'm now going to support yours! The Germans were still flying a Ju-87G into battle and attacking the Oder crossing circa mid January 1945. This is the last known Luftwaffe combat footage, in fact. I believe this was shown in the final episode of Wings of the Luftwaffe. tyrspawn, If you wish to claim the A-10 is unsurvivable because of S-300 on up, then I have an equally good counterargument vs the SU-25. Patriot. Lots of them. Regards, John Kettler Edited March 13, 2015 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablius Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 The A-10 should be in If we are going to have a made up/fantasy sky scenario, just for fun, with a long contested air war and no stand-off CAS missions, why not go all in? My bet is the A-10 makes and appearance in the next module, together with USMC air assets (assuming a Marines theme), just to add some value to the mix Also, why no F-35s? Aren´t those being built and tested right now? Won´t they enter service by then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) As of 2017 the worst thing to happen to the US Military since Pearl Harbor F-35 will only be able to use JDAMs and LGBs. SDBs and the gun aren't going to work until like 2019-2022. It's a really bad aircraft and it's supposed to reach IOC at the end of the year. I do not want to set foot near it. Fortunately the Navy hates them too and is only buying them because they have to. Semi-related: Why doesn't NATO assign different reporting letter schemes for Ground Attack aircraft besides "F"? Examples: Frogfoot and Fantan. I know A is taken, but why not throw them under B for Bomber (similar role) or like I for interdictor. Edit: I've done some research. F-35 will be able to use its gun in 2017 (Block 2B upgrade). The SDB is still stuck until 2022 (Block 4), leaving the good ol' GBU-12 and GBU-38. Source on SDB: http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/oops-us-close-air-support-bomb-doesnt-fit-on-the-f35/ Source on gun: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/07/f35-gun-on-track/21401907/ Edited March 14, 2015 by Codename Duchess 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablius Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 As of 2017 the worst thing to happen to the US Military since Pearl Harbor F-35 will only be able to use JDAMs and LGBs. SDBs and the gun aren't going to work until like 2019-2022. It's a really bad aircraft and it's supposed to reach IOC at the end of the year. I do not want to set foot near it. Fortunately the Navy hates them too and is only buying them because they have to. Semi-related: Why doesn't NATO assign different reporting letter schemes for Ground Attack aircraft besides "F"? Examples: Frogfoot and Fantan. I know A is taken, but why not throw them under B for Bomber (similar role) or like I for interdictor. Edit: I've done some research. F-35 will be able to use its gun in 2017 (Block 2B upgrade). The SDB is still stuck until 2022 (Block 4), leaving the good ol' GBU-12 and GBU-38. Source on SDB: http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/oops-us-close-air-support-bomb-doesnt-fit-on-the-f35/ Source on gun: http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/07/f35-gun-on-track/21401907/ Thanks for digging up that info I guess "operational" doesn't mean what it used to...Still, if the thing is capable of putting some kind of weapon on target by 2015-17 it may show up in a later module And about the Navy hating it, there is not much choice, right? Other than pumping out F-18E/Fs until everyone else has a 5th Gen. fighter, which, granted, may take a long while 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) Yeah you can get JDAMs and LGBs out of it, so it's as capable as any other jet we have in CMBS. I'm 100% biased for obvious reasons, but the Super Hornet and the Growler are very capable platforms. Maneuverable, high payload, great sensors, etc. They only lack in acceleration (which new engines could fix - and be a whole lot cheaper than a new fleet of jets) and their range is average. They are also the stealthiest non-stealth aircraft in the US arsenal (I'd claim the world but I won't go that far) incorporating a lot of RCS reducing features. And then you get the Advanced Super Hornet which adds a stealth weapons pod, conformal fuel tanks, and new engines to overcome all those weaknesses. And you could still buy 2-3 per F-35, on a new and proven airframe. Plus 2 engines is always better than one when your only alternative is swimming. And it has a gun. So yeah, the F-35C sucks. Edited March 14, 2015 by Codename Duchess 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 14, 2015 Author Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) Codename Duchess and BFC, Flash! For the USN, the F-35C will NOT reach IOC until 2018. Why not? Budget and electronics problems. This important force structure and schedule information was posted 12 hours ago on Defense News. Navy is going to SLEP 150 FA-18Cs and buy 41 FA-18Es. Additionally, someone at USMC is going to have to get creative, for the Marine VSTOL F-35Bs aren't even in this FYDP. And Congress loved you guys so much it gave you 15 more Growlers. This is probably a good thing, since the Air Force doesn't really have dedicated tactical jamming aircraft anymore since the EF-111 Spark Vark retired. I concur that the super Hornet, relative to fighters which preceded it, is pretty stealthy. Also, if you believe any of a wealth of material emerging, Stealth as we know it isn't going to survive proliferating LF (not to mention bistatic and polystatic) radar. I heard (via Agency back channel I worked with) as far back as my Hughes days that Stealth could be negated in that way. I think, despite Navy statements to the contrary, it will find a way to avoid bringing more than a small number of F-35Cs into the service. Were they not so costly, I'd suggest skipping the usual end of service life mods and simply build them as QF-35Cs to begin with. That way a) they get shot down and don't risk a pilot's life in the progress. If Putin's dead, as some seem to believe, it may be that he died laughing because the US is stupid enough to buy this thing at all, never mind depend on it as the mass replacement tactical plane for the Air force, Navy and the Marines! The mind boggles. If he's not dead yet, then this should finish him off. No F-35, regardless of service, will have a working gun until 2019--at the earliest--presuming there's no further schedule slip. I doubt I could sell this story to Hollywood. It's too incredible. Were the plane Russian and Stalin in charge, I feel safe to say there'd be a lot of empty desks at the OKBs responsible, a small uptick in Gulag occupancy and OT for firing squads. In light of the above, I respectfully request the F-35 be eliminated from the CAS roster for CMBS. There is no doubt whatsoever it can't handle the job. Its electronics and sensors are crippled now and will be for years, its payload is risible, and this horrible excuse for a warplane doesn't and won't have a working gun in the CMBS timeframe. Were I SecDef, who I'm now told is called DOD, I'd cancel this thing in a heartbeat. If F-35 procurement goes forward, I think it's going to make people who know defense procurement history look at the whole TFX/F-111 debacle with great fondness. On a separate note, Godwin's Law (forget who invoked it) doesn't apply here. Why? I invoked nether Nazis nor Hitler. I deliberately used the Luftwaffe's last hurrah as a way to show it is indeed possible to operate CAS type aircraft under the most tremendously adverse circumstances. Regards, John Kettler Edited March 14, 2015 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablius Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Perhaps the US Navy should rebrand their whole F-18E/F fleet to F-35D/E...that would send a clear message 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsKb Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Yeah you can get JDAMs and LGBs out of it, so it's as capable as any other jet we have in CMBS. I'm 100% biased for obvious reasons, but the Super Hornet and the Growler are very capable platforms. Maneuverable, high payload, great sensors, etc. They only lack in acceleration (which new engines could fix - and be a whole lot cheaper than a new fleet of jets) and their range is average. They are also the stealthiest non-stealth aircraft in the US arsenal (I'd claim the world but I won't go that far) incorporating a lot of RCS reducing features. And then you get the Advanced Super Hornet which adds a stealth weapons pod, conformal fuel tanks, and new engines to overcome all those weaknesses. And you could still buy 2-3 per F-35, on a new and proven airframe. Plus 2 engines is always better than one when your only alternative is swimming. And it has a gun. So yeah, the F-35C sucks. Weird, I got the impression it was reasonably liked as an aircraft, maybe not as a program. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Were they not so costly, I'd suggest skipping the usual end of service life mods and simply build them as QF-35Cs to begin with. Good one, John. That made me actually LOL. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 14, 2015 Author Share Posted March 14, 2015 Pablius, What a truly twisted rebranding idea. Did you know the Navy sold Congress on two radically different submarine launched cruise missiles, simply by giving the second one the same basic program name? Behold the Regulus strategic cruise missiles! Notice any differences--other, say, than just the factor of two range and speed deltas? Regulus, a subsonic jet powered weapon Regulus II, a supersonic jet powered weapon. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Regarding rebranding, the Navy are old hands at that. The F9F Panther and F9F Cougar were radically different airplanes, but the Navy sold the Cougar to Congress as just a modest product improvement. The Air Force and Republic Aviation did the same thing with the F-84F, which was sold as just a product improvement to the F-84G. And so it goes... Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 14, 2015 Author Share Posted March 14, 2015 (edited) I wish to note for the record that emoticon in my #243 was wholly unintentional. Frankly I find it embarrassing and wish I had a way to remove it. Michael Emrys, There were doubtless other examples than the ones we presented, but the Regulus story has always stuck in my mind, particularly after I got to see both atop their pedestals at the main gate of Pt. Mugu Naval Air Station in California. There, the contrast between the two, in appearance, size, proportions and such couldn't have been in sharper contrast. Though developed pretty much at the same time, they look like they were designed a decade plus apart. Regards, John Kettler Edited March 14, 2015 by John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablius Posted March 14, 2015 Share Posted March 14, 2015 Wasn´t aware of the Regulus, nice trick The Panther and the Cougar I had some knowledge since both served in my country´s naval aviation wing, in low numbers, but not sure if they were ever embarked, Wikipedia seems to say no...that is when we still had a carrier, now naval aviation means the aircrafts are stationed close to shore while rusting I guess 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.