nuke1as fighter bomber the F-5 seems to have better endurance and payload, but as fighter interceptor, well, forget about the F-5 intercepting supersonic target expect in exceptionals cases ,like hapepned with Mig 25s. As modernization there isn’t much difference as spaces for the radars. I think that the Mig 21 needs a better engines as RD 33 or F 404.
In the AA role, the F-5 is better agile at low levels but not at the highers. The Mig 21 bis is regarded as a cheap F 16 while the F 5 could be seen as a basic F 17 (with modernizations).
nuke1hi,
Ok,
Js and Seahawk you need a mid-correction update to your statements.
let’s make it clear: If let’s say N.K. or Iran let’s say buy SSN 19 ( that you so much dislike forgetting that they were already 20 years ago while this s..t of NSM is only coming now and this for me IT’S a difference) this NOT MEAN that they must buy a Kirov or Oscar. In this case you should be right 100%, but not forget how a single vessel in the history has made a strong deterrent ( the Yavuz, the Tirpiz).
Why, inshtead, they simply cannot buy a (ipothetical) version of the Shipwreck?
Should i remenber to you that the argentinians fielded a improvised version land launched of hte Exocet, derivated by a naval mount (and not with out success)??
and that this launchers were used after by english in the Gibilterra fortress?
So, what’s the strange to imagine a SSN 19 coastal version for Iran or N.K. or China?
There weapons could be “vulnerable?” Laughing for xx minuts. Have you present the “success” of the SCud hunting in DS and OIF? Do you find that a truck with a single SSN 19 is more vulnerable that a truck with 2 exocet but that it must be in the 20-30 Km range from the shores? Have you have present the “little difficults” to fly deep in Iran for 400 km before to reach some SSN 19 mobile launchers?
Have you present that the SSN 19 could be used as nuclear attack supersonic long range missile in a manner that NO norwegian s….y missiles can eventually do?
Excuse me for the fough but i cannot see why the stuffs should been seen so crappy as system, .but it’s so. For many, if the soviet made cheap harware, they were in wrong because they made too cheap systems, if they made sophistied system they were wrong because they made too sophistied systems and the western types were simpler. Whetetver they done ,they were wrong. They were defeated at the end, perhps as a providence justice
nuke1oh,,
“I was merely observing that an obviously aggressive thread had been slung into our quiet corner of the internet, where very few care about THRELs beating GPSs, or CEPs taking out NASDAQs.
Hey! Over there – the pope on a unicycle!!! (~Makes hurried exit~)
Flood”
I cannot understund the point.. can you elaborate better? If you aren’t interested why post in this topic? I DON’t wish a new war to anyone, this forum should be interested in a such item. I talk about tecnology and tecnic, noyhing else. The fact about the presence in this part of the forum is due by moderator not me, i have posted in the modern aviation
Quote;
“I have to think that the Taiwanese probably have a SOSUS type sensor net all around their islands. They probably know of everything, above, and below the water around their island for 100nm. There wouldn’t be a great need to operate SSN’s in that space. The hostile boat would be detected, and a P-3 or a helicopter would be sent out to dispose of it.
As for overwhelming the island defenses with cheap V-1 type rockets, or tommahawk knock offs, The only defence needed against those are radar guided 20 mm vulcan cannons, or bigger, the same type used on ships. It’s a lot easier to deploy and feed hundreds or even thousands of those, than using a patriot type system to try and shoot every one of them down. Patriot systems are better used against ballistic weapons. If you’re going to use rockets in an overwhelming attack, they should be ballistic. If you have 10k plus scud type ballistic weapons deployed for such an attack, you’re very vulnerable to a counter strike that destroys the bulk of those weapons on the ground.
Taiwan ain’t gonna roll over.”
perhpas you are right “only ” several hundreds of phalanx are enough BUT the fact remains, that the offense is much more cheaper than the defense.
__________________
nuke1Ok Flood, it’s funny.. something more tecnical?
nuke1Someone could appreciate that if a navy, whetever it can be, is facing with a stuff like the Granit it could be …”scared” by that even if the exocet or the deus ex machina NSM could be more praticat? It’s not a so small advantage even if theoric, a 500 km range 8and a ipotetical Nuke warhead)
nuke1[QUOTE=nuke1]several points,
-if the sr-71 has 1% of tomcat RCS how is the tomcat rcs?
-the RCS of the sr71 is frontal, but the air defences were able to see it from below, so the RCS lies about it’s detectabily, even if helped him to escape
-if a A-12, perhaps the fastest version of the SR, was almost hit by Sa-2 guidelaine, once even a debrief was hitten its wing, well, the Sa-5-10-12 should done better, i’d say. Perhaès that it wasn’ enough to shot down teh blackbird but it was enough to worry because teh interception was theorically possible. If the blackbird wasn’t stheaklt, the sa-2 could have the time OK to intercept it with a head on engagement insthad to fullow the SR. It could help a AWACS
-given that a Phantom was nearly to shoot down the foxbat i don’t see why a foxbat or a Flanker-mig 31 cannot theorically do the same with a SR
-The SR had also ECMs but it’s IR signal was too strong, and the IR AAMs can shot down it. Seen that the Nike hercules were already used vs other nike hercules as anti missiles tests, i don’t see why a Acrid or a Amos cannot not function well if they meeet a head on SR 71, with the speed as 6 mach about. It’s the same with a phoenix intercepting head on a Kitchen or a foxbat or a SM-Patriot vs a scud, but these capabilitites were i repeat shown also with the Nike hercules
nuke1and let me add, if you want to knmow what is impotrant and how is important to lfly fast in the battle over to fly low, ask to the iranians-israeli-**** pilots, and see their opnions about.
your low, fat , huge warthogfhs could be targeted atleast to scare him , even with a rpg. but the designers weren’t the only top made a mistake. also the theoric of thetornado thinked that fly low -and fast- should give better garantiies for the plane to survive… until DS.
the probles is for every fighter, but a plne like the A 10 how well found itself in a mediom level-flight, AND ALL ITS SPECIALIZATION DESIGN TO FLY SLOW AND LOW WHAT VALUE HAS?
nuke1Quote:
“Who is “everyone”? The people riding in the tanks?
No argument.””
Are you aware that there are more than a soldier in tank? Have you present the role of the MG gunner? or you think that if a tank moves, none in the crew can do any other thing? And we talk about the tank moving, not the tank stopped only slighty outside the street, perhaps under trees if available ( not in Kuwait). Are you aware that exist also the infantry and they could hold ready for the launch the strela-igla of their veicle?
Quote:
“Tornados and Jaguars are slower than Su-25?”
I have said quite thwe contrary: If the iraqui were able to hit so fast planes, passing only a time, it’s clear that the problems of the slower aircraft could been only worse. The frogfoot isn’t faster, but atleast is armoured vs small arms fire. The A-10 also, but it’s the slower combat aircraft of the post WW era, and huge also. There is no way that it could perform decently strikes against a strong defence, and the MANPADS are well evolved by the last 30 years. They are dangers as well to a frogfoot but if you consider the time arming of these missiles and the relative speed of the aircraft, i’d say that a slight possiblitty to hit the A-10 while the fogfoot comes aways there is.
Quote:
“So much for all those AK-47s “shooting back”.
stupid comment. and even not funny.
To say the A-10 is better than necessary is a very different argument than to say it is somehow insufficient. For the sake of consistency, please make up your mind which argument you are using.
you are unable to understund almost evrything, swingy? This is simply apalling. I HAVE SAID THAT TO SLAUGH RETREAITING UNDEFENDED ENEMY there isn’t a real difference between a normal fighter bomber and a iper -specialized like the A-10, and i answered to your bbright example of the death street wiht ohter example that show that it’s not real useful to have a A-10 to massacre undefended, unorganized troops.
Quote:
Yes… It would appear pilots have repeatedly proven the capability to do so.
Where and who? When and what? How many real battle Maverick launches have been performed by 30 m, in a european enviroment???
Quote:
“And the Su-25 overcomes these limits with..?”
The problem is that Mavericks are your strong point of your A-10, i haven’t never said that SU has better, but if you think thath the maverick is the wonder weapon , well ,you should know that it has several heavy limits…
Quote:
Do you know how many Su-25 were lost to MANPADS?
Irrilevant. Do you know how many A-10 were shot down or atleast damaged, despite the high level operations adopted afer the first days of DS? Do you know why the missions under 3000 mts were abandoned in 1991 and 1999 and 2001-2003? How many 30 m flyng planes except the helicopteres you had seen? If every plane is treated by small fire and manpads i don’t see how a A-10 could be the exception, but if it’s important to fly low, better to be in a fast aircraft than a slower. Not believe it? Just check the losses of the A-1 in the late vietnam war.
Quote:
“by that, The speed of the froogfot is NOT atleast good to not be heasily hitten or reached by fighters”
O yes, right. Try with a A-10 inshtead and even a slow aircraft could treatheing you. With a Su 27 isn’t a question ,but try with a Hawk or a Sea harrier.
Quote:
“Oh sure. There were Su-25 and Hinds in Iraq, why were they not performing this air defence? As if the 4 kg warhead of the Aphid is going to scratch an A-10. I suppose the Sidewinders and GAU don’t exist?”
GAU 8 exists, and AIM 9 also, but before the late 80’s there weren’t AIM-9 nor the LASTE for the Gau. This is not exactly a couple of advantages, doesn’it? ANd to what air defence the URSS should done in afghanistan? Mujaideens had A-10? Helicopters?
Do you feel that if a Sa-14 or Sa-13 is able to shoot down a A-10 a Aphid could ‘nt do the same? Do you htink that the A-10 could escape by a SU 25 while the SU doesn’t? Have you ever read that a zero was.. in difficult with faster foes like the courasir?
Quote:
Meet the wathogh with a mustang and see. Let’s say without missiles for everyone.
You can play this game alone now. No argument.
BECAUSE you haven’t a clue of any rational discussion nor any real war situation. Garry is right you seems only a Gameboy expert. And not of hte bests.
Differently you should know that the first jet fighter of US , the P-59, once was fling with a P-38 , this latter was forced t oreduce the speed to not distance it. Also the vanilla meteor was unable to fly fast like the last spitfire generation, or the mustang. Perhaps you should know also the fightings between Migs and A-1/Seafury. So i’d say, the question isn’t ony accademical, if a Jet want to survive in a clash with a piston powered fighter, it should be atleast a lot faster.
h, there is your last post. Very funny. Who is hte B person, you? And i should be the A? Funny.
nuke1don’t forget the TU 123DR!
nuke1several points,
-if teh sr-71 has 1% of tomcat RCS hos is the tomcat rsc?
-the RCS of the sr is frontal, but the air defences were able to see it from below, so hte RCS lies about it’s detectabily, even if helped him yo escape
-if a A-12, perhaps the fastest version of the SR, was almost hit by Sa-2 guidelaine, once even a debrief was hitten its wing, well, the Sa-5-10-12 should done better, i’d say. Perhaès that it wasn’ enough to shot down teh blackbird but it was enough to worry because teh interception was theorically possible. If the blackbird wasn’t stheaklt, the sa-2 could have the time OK to intercept it with a head on engagement insthad to fullow the SR. It could help a AWACS
-given that a Phantom was nearly to shoot down the foxbat i don’t see why a foxbat or a Flanker-mig 31 cannot theorically do the same with a SR
-The SR had also ECMs but it’s IR signal was too strong, and the IR AAMs can shot down it. Seen that the Nike hercules were already used vs other nike hercules as anti missiles tests, i don’t see why a Acrid or a Amos cannot not function well if they meeet a head on SR 71, with the speed as 6 mach about. It’s the same with a phoenix intercepting head on a Kitchen or a foxbat or a SM-Patriot vs a scud, but these capabilitites were i repeat shown also with the Nike hercules
nuke1Effectively, i cannot see why the chineses devepodped a long range SAM ARm missile: there moust be reasons taht we don’t know. More, i have heard that a HARM hitten a B 52 because its tail radar or ECM.
nuke1Hole’ Garry.. i haven’t time to continue the discussion now with our mr- i knowall- Swingy.. but before towmorrow i do something.
For the moment one new: Swingy knows that several helicopters were shot down with RPGs? Something to do with the concept that a slow and huge target is incedentally a easy target? Desèpite the flank defence firearms?
nuke1sure, but who is perfect? with such assumptions i’d say tha the enemy vessels must first survive at some enemy minefield , a thing that could worry the US skippers
nuke1but 600:1 where comes? every hornet was downed 80 times?
nuke1Quote:
“Indeed I do.
Since the Maverick is fire-and-forget, and the A-10 flies pretty slow, a single A-10 has the ability to destroy the first vehicle in the column, the last vehicle in the column, and two recognizable air defense vehicles with Mavericks, then aim the gun for a strafing run on any troops that look like they are sticking around getting ready to shoot instead of running for their lives – all in the first pass.
With the A-10’s fuel load, a second (or more) pass is possible, but I can’t imagine why it would be necessary. The pilot would only do it if there was no air defense resistance.
Even if the target starts shooting back, the A-10’s wingman can see and destroy the surviving defenders while the first A-10 is turning around for a second pass. Who in their right mind would be shooting back? Even the successful destruction of an A-10 cannot compensate for the damage that has already been done by this point. With no possibility to win anything useful, and every possibility to be killed, the defenders should run for their lives. The additional passes are conducted to disable the remaining equipment and prevent its use in the future, not to go head-to-head against a still fighting opponent.
And even if the A-10 is hit using this tactic, it stands a very good chance of survival, as multiple battle-damaged A-10s have shown.
[I]If you feel this tactic would never work, or the scenario would never happen, how do you explain the “highway of death” in 1991? Where were the “modern AD defences” and “eventually fighters” then? The fire-and-forget, optically-guided Maverick weapon, combined with low approach speed and lots of bullets, makes the A-10 superbly designed to take advantage of this situation.”**********
Swinkidd, you seems to have no idea of several things.
1-You say: who fire back at teh A-10? Answer: if it flies enough low and close, everyone has a gun from AK to higher. Rganted. A german pilot of FW said: we were abitued, when happen a air attack, to stand couvered at ground, whle the AA gun crew answered to the fire. Here, the russians are completely differents: everyone has a gun, when we pass over them, don’t care to escape but fire with all the bullets he has, so every mission flied at low level is a garancy to hold a lot of holes, so we are awed by such defencive fire.they fire on us even with ATR!”
All this don’t sound familiary on you, swingy? Let’s say 1991, when the first missions of the Tornado at low level were swifty fullowed byu a change on tactics, and teh first 12 frenchs jaguar had 4 planes hitten by the light smallarms reaction? And even you also could understund that these planes (ex IDS flyng night mission) were more elusive than a A-10 flyng on the battle for 1 hour, doesn’t?
-Another silly consideration made by you:
“If you feel this tactic would never work, or the scenario would never happen, how do you explain the “highway of death” in 1991? “
if slaughters are liked, well, see the photos of the 1967 war. The massacre on the Mitla pass. Made by IDF aircrafts like the uoragan and the mystere. Then speak. Conclusion, for who want to hear: theres’nt need of a very specialized plane like the A-10 to bomb the grunts
-point tree: someone has ever said to you that the maverick has some..”limits”? Ever heard of the minimum range? Do you think that in a european scenario a A-10 can discouver flying low armours and then identifie and then lock on with the AGM and then fire BEFORE that the minimum range of atleast 1 km is touched? Another shocking new: the smoke and teh cloud aren’t good for the seeker of a TV missile. Also the TI have some limits: it’s difficult to identifie the target.
Is it a M1 or a T-80 ERA? is it a BMP or a AIFV? Hell, british have veicle too similar to BMPs, i fear to have just destryed a..what’s the name? O yes, a warrior. Or it was a scimitar? Sh..t i had launched at a patton tank thinking it was a T-62: how i can image? it was too mimetized that i had see only the gun! (samples of the possible talks about a typical A-10 mission in the WWIII, but every ref, with real happened cases are intentional as well).
Quote:—-
“No, i mean that it’s not so sure that this tecnic of attack, if repeated as to fully deplete the huge drum belt, could be VERY dungerous, expecially if you consider that therse strafings are with the speed les tahn 500 kmh. Have you some problems to imagine what such plane could face if it tries to do so?
A terrified, fleeing ground force running to hide at the sides of the road?”*****
And arming NVST and Iglas..for th reasons that i had said but that you cannot understund because you think that every soldier is a stupid puppchen unable to do anything to die.
Quote:—
“The speed of the froogfot is atleast good to not to be heasily hitten or reached by AA and fighters, Extra knots are essentialy to do this.
Su-27 were shooting down Su-25 over Abkhazia without difficulty. *****
well, by that? The SU-27 of eTaf were able to struck eraf Mig-29, the Mig 21 were able to catch the F-104 etc. etc. even the sea Harrier were able to shot the daggers.
quote:—-
“The extra knots of Su-25 are for approaching and leaving the target defenses, they have nothing to do with evading fighters.”****
do you find unuseful this? If a WWIII happened , probably you will see A-10 downed not only by the fighters but by :
– A L-39 with gun pods
– A Su-25 with guns and aphids
– A Hind with aphids or similar
A 900 kmh plane could escape by these treath quite well. And if the speed is one km every 4 secs instead of 6, also teh AA defence should be swift.
And then do you know that even a WWII fighter could catch the A-10? Meet the wathogh with a mustang and see. Let’s say without missiles for everyone.
More, i have seen in air both the Su-25 and the A-10 and i can assure that the latter is MUCH easy to spot.
Quote:—–
“Supersonic fighters are not so able to fly slow like teh CAS planes but the A-10 was projected with too much emphasis on these and so it isn’t a equilibrate design, usable mainly if the USAF has the total air dominiance.
I would argue that “total air dominance” is nice but not necessary. It is sufficient to have only “local air superiority” during the time of the battle. A pair of F-15s circling high over the action can detect and intercept any approaching fighters without being themselves in danger from the ground forces. Slow speed and lots of bullets is not sufficient proof that the A-10 is intended to operate in enemy-controlled airspace. The enemy will try to support its ground forces even when you control the airspace over them, and this is where the usefulness of the A-10 is seen.********
?????????
Quote:—–
“perhaps this is the reason of the lack of export of A-10??
This is a fair question. I don’t have an answer, but I do think that the Turks were as foolish as USAF to say that they have “no use for such primitive technology.”*******
I have the answer, insthead. The Us went to propose to Italy the A-10 but it was refused, insthead the italians continued with the AMX. I don’t think that someone in italy complain this choice, despite the weakness of the AMX.
The point is that the needings are for smaller and faster fighters, expecially if the enemy has atleast Sa-14 missiles. The design of the A-10 is cleary optimized for its designed role, it was born as a COIN aricraft replacing the skyrider. For how you can be interested, USAF turback on his decision to phase out the A-10 after DS, when these planes were useful. But before, they were criticized in a broad manner. This while the SU-25 was selled in dozens of countries even after the beakdown of the URSS. This is not mean nothing to you? also, do you ever heard of any direct sobsitute planned for this aircraft? More do you have clue that also a P-51 could reach and shot down this plane (a modified mustang was propoed even as alternative to the A-10)?
Quote:—–
you can deny all you want about the frogfoot capabilities,
Eh? What capabilities of Su-25 do I “deny”?****
atleast the speed .
Quote:——-
“but relatively on the A-10 it can do a lot of things: it’s speed can be good enough to perform quite well in roles that none has ever thinked for the A-10.
Please, name the roles. Name the missions that the speed of Su-25 allows it to do, that the A-10 cannot. To penetrate enemy fighter-controlled airspace? Nonsense. To penetrate airspace controlled by radar SAMs? Nonsense. Landing on a carrier is not a role or mission.”********
And who say this? you? So every strike mission made by the frogfoot was definitevly wrong? Where is the nonsence? Because the frogfoot hasn’t all weather sensors? and the jaguars? the fitters?
Because your understnding problems , iam force to replay:
-AA emergency defence
-strike (day only)
-recce mission (if with atleast basic sensors over the MK1)
Quote:———
“this is finally a too specialized designs, and the frogfoot doesn’t.
The Frogfoot is at least as specialized a design as the A-10. It is designed for exactly one mission: to respond to a call from ground forces for a directed airstrike against an unmoving target. It needs a higher speed because its fuel load is smaller, so it will probably be starting from the runway when the call is received. The A-10 can afford to be slower because its fuel load allows it to already be somewhere in the air when the call is received.*********
NO, the frogfoot isn’t so specialized like the A-10. Think what you want, ask to evry ingeneer that you know and find what is the difference.
Quote:———-
“the real equal was the pucara’ attack plane, showing a overall failure as combat.
The Pucara cannot be compared to the A-10 because it carries no fire-and-forget weapons that are good against moving targets. The primary feature of the A-10 is not its speed or damage resistance but its fire-and-forget air-to-ground missiles that can retain lock on moving surface targets. If the Pucara or any other aircraft had such weapons it would have been a stunning success in that role.*********
BS. the pucara’ is alsmost the exact version turbo-prop of the A-10, with the advantage that it is , seen it’s a turboprop, atleast a good speed for its type and not the worst performances among the jet fighters of teh gistory like the A-10.
They are both armed with a lot of internal firepower, and external good payload.
they are both twin engined, wiht long endurance and low speed
tehy are both designed for low level war or atleast in a countrolled airspace
they are both day light designed models.
Swingy, could you find about the Mavericks taht they:
-could been carried also by other less specialized aircrafts, even helicopters
-they have problems if the visibility isn’t good, expecially the first versions
-they required to close to the target before the launch
-they are unuseful if teh aircarft that carried them is shot down before to close under 5 km to the intended target.
-even if they were carried by th pucaras the outcome couldn’t been so better, even if it could help, a Sea harrier or a blowpipe isn’t affected much by taht, less even the SAS teams.
Quote:———-
“Atleast the su-25 has laser weapons and these can be a danger for a seacat defended vessel, doen’t it?
How will the moving ship stay illuminated during the missile time of flight? With the Su-25 keep itself pointed at the ship no matter where it moves? This is a problem target for a SeaCat? After missile launch, even our imaginary “Maverick-equipped Pucara” would have been able to maneuver away, regardless its slow speed.********
Do you seriuosly find taht 10 secs are too much? And the minuts more that a pucara’ spent in teh area because its “speed”?
Quote:——
“
I think that the argentians could have aprreciated these plane if they could have them in that time, perhaps with a IFR capability.
Well, a laser-guided missile is better than unguided weapons against a ship target, but an optically-guided weapon is much better.”******
you break open doors. And by that? The maverick is a wonderful weapon but is it all? No matter aboiut the platform? However, argentinians stroke with iron bombs that aare worse to both the type of guided ASM..
Quote:——
“
NO you seems not understund. The F-16 could be still a multi role fighter even if hasn’t harm or harpoon. It’s the project that make the difference.
Ok, so there are two different definitions of “multi-role fighter”.
One is the kind of “multi-role fighter” like tha F-16 and F/A-18, where a single aircraft can perform different missions depending on its armament. Let’s call this “multi-role fighter definition A”.
The other is the kind of aircraft that can be modified into many different variants, with each variant performing a different task, like Su-27/Su-30/Su-33/Su-34/Su-35/Su-37/Su-27KUB. Let’s call this “multi-role fighter definition B”.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that neither the Su-25 nor the A-10A qualify as “definition A”. However, the “cost” of developing the A-10A so completely for the CAS role is that the same design cannot now be modified into other roles, like the Su-25, according to “definition B”.
In that case, we have an actual disagreement. I consider all modifications of the Su-25 for other roles to be inherently inferior aircraft. This includes the Su-25UT trainer, the Su-25UTG carrier trainer, the Su-25T anti-tank variant, the Belarussian Su-25UB antiradar upgrade, the Su-25TM/Su-39 multirole attack aircraft, the Su-25K Scorpion and everything else.
The A-10 and original Su-25 were well-designed, no-compromise combat aircraft successes. The modifications of Su-25 are IMHO cheaply engineered hacks trying to be economic successes.
Thus, I don’t think at all that the “cost was too high” that the A-10 was designed for its role and nothing else. On the contrary, this is its greatest strength, and the reason why all attempts to replace and retire it are failures.
*****
Sooo you find taht the specialization design and the inability to evolve into newer type is a strength of teh A-10 while the evolution of the Su 25 is a sort of weakness? Really interesting.
I would rememnber that also the Tornado was thinked as a multirole aircraft. Almost all the modern fighte bombers or attackers are multirole. Also the super etendar, as example, can be conigurated for seeral kinds of missions. It’s not a F-18, but can perform in different roles. So if thi don’t hurt you , you can say taht there is a sub definition of the multirole fighter, the C:
-a aircraft essentially capable to perform quite OK more than a mission. Also teh A-10 can do several things but i am sure that it’s not so flexible as teh relative Su 25, and this because the Su-25 isn’t so specialized as project like the A-10
Quote:—–
“ATLEAST the froogfot was made also as naval role, the A-10 doesn’t. Not that the Su-25 are navalized, but none A-10 is navalized, so atleast as flexbility of the family versions the froogfot have a point. ”
As stated, IMHO this “family flexibility” is a disadvantage. The attempts to make a CAS aircraft into something else only consume resources and interfere with the creation of a more suitable alternative.********
laughing for 1″12 secs.
Quote:—–
Do you have problem with me or you suffers oshortage of arguments?
No not just you. ” ******
No just your standpoints
Quote:——–
“because you haven’t clue of what it means. Try if happens, to aim something ( harm, an umbrella,) to a fast jet or a trainer flyng over your head and you will understund better why the speed is a garantee. With “kids” this game could help.
If the aircraft is not moving towards me, it can’t shoot at me either. Whether it lives or dies is none of my business.
If the aircraft is moving towards me or away from me, it is easy to point at it no matter what is its speed.**********
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
excuse my visualization of my thinkings..
But Okay, this is your standpoint. But it’sa not so happens in a real battle, and less than a guerrilla style actions. see the real world after speak. Or do you think taht the 5 A-10 downed in DS were suicide by bored pilots?
Sign In
