True the upgrades will increase the effectiveness of the A-10 but what i’m really asking is it worth the price? The 30mm cannon is nice but using it means that the A-10 is also within range of AAA and short-range SAMs. It can take punishment better than aby aircraft but defenses are becoming increasingly lethal hence the impetus to provide enhanced stand-off capability similar to what a F-16 and Strike Eagle can provide quite effectively and what the coming F-35 will be able to do even better. The Army is now even less reliant on CAS with its new toys. Excalibur and GPS-guided MLRS rockets can provide precision strike faster and cheaper in most instances and the M-1 will be able to hit targets up to 12km away with rocket-based projectiles. And there’s still the Apache if a gun is needed though recent conflict have shown that stand-off attacks are the best way to go.
Thanks for the responses even though there may be a difference of opinion.
The crowd-pleasing aerobatics the Russian Flankers and Fulcrums put on feature segments of uncontrolled flight. Was it necessary to modify or override the FCS to allow the jets to gyrate and flip so dramaically?
I suspect the AF is gambling on the potential of usung AESA tecnology to provide enhanced electronic attack capabilities heretofore available on dedicated a/c like the Growler. Gen. Mosely is quotd as saying initial AESA tests provide “fascinating” electronic attack results. Potentially, all AESA aircraft in the future and not just the F-22 and F-35 will provide this capability.
I’m curious why the USAF doesn’t acquire the Growler? Surely it would come in useful accompanying strike packages and enhancing the efficiency of legacy and even stealth aircraft.:confused:
I remember reading several years ago an iterview with a F-16 pilot who made it very clear that the F-22 could easily out-maneuver his viper in WVR combat even without the use of TVC. This was a revelation to me as not much was knownabout the Raptor’s dogfighting ability at the time and a lot of comments about its “tubby” shape” and “compromised aerodynamics” were being peddled as fact.
The F-35 seems to be getting the same treatment. Its criticized for not being as sleek as earlier jets, “tubby” and “boxy” to cite a few adjectives used. It just seems funny to me that the same company builds the 2 jets and if the tubby Raptor outflies a F-16 then the boxy Lightning-II should be able to do the same.
One thing I noticed is that their estimates of the F-35 RCS seem to be quite a bit off from what’s floating around the intenet. Maybe the russians are making assumptions based on the F-117 wreckage the Serbs gave them. Maybe its wishful thinking on their part.:D
Doesn’t spoil any fun but when someone can say pretty much anything and say “an anonymous person said of the record. . .” what’s the point? Suppose MY “anonymous, off the record” source said “the F-117 is so stealthy it flew fifty meters in front of the Pirate equipped Typhoon and the Typhoon couldn’t even detect it.” Who’s right? What’s the point of even saying it? That’s the only part that annoys me.
Very true. And it only gets worse when such statements get propagated thru the web and start popping up all over the place.:(
Here’s the current Syrian SAM site map. The new SA-2 range ring should be obvious.
Now I can see why Israel wanted the Raptor so badly. Anyone willing to speculate how the F-22 would fare against these defenses?
Anyone know the status of the AF plans to acquire 20 additional F-22s in excess of the 183 authorized? Has a formal request for inclusion in the latest AF budget been made? What are the odds they get the planes?
Remember all the criticisms leveled against the Raptor during its development and early testing? These have all but disappeared now that the jet has had enough flight time to prove itself. The F-35 will have to go thru the same route to quiet its critics. Personally, I think its going to be a landmark jet.
They’re bluffing, not unless they plan on flying their F-4s for the next 20 years or so..
The AF is playing this conservatively and all the hypersonic and really exotic stuff probably won’t be ready by 2018.
Would a high wing with engines hanging from it at the same level as the fuselage pose any noise problems for passenger planes? Could that be a factor as well?
I have a sneaky suspicion that this development may be part of a Boeing strategy to regain its position as the dominant plane builder by by being the first in the new paradigm and dealing a crippling blow to the competition at the same time. The 747-800 IMO is a stopgap to hold the fort vs the A380, sapping its sales until the BWB makes its entrance. The troubles the A380 is experiencing could not have been foreseen but they definitely work to Boeing’s advantage. In the meantime. Boeing leverages what it learned/is learning specially from the 787 plus its formidable technical resources and bring these to bear to make the BWB a success. I agree that this will be a challenging project but nothing that cannot be overcome. This is just the sort of project that captures the imagination and Boeing is more than capable of pulling it off IMO. Sure it will kill the 747-800 but by then Boeing should have more than recouped its modest investment. More importantly, think of what it does to the A380 and any hopes to generate a profit from that platform. With its resources tied up in the XWB, Airbus will have scant resources to respond and will be effectively left a generation behind.