If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Defense News)   "A-10..." "You sank my warthog fleet"   (defensenews.com) divider line 316
    More: Unlikely, U.S. Air Force, Boeing F-15C Eagle, McDonnell Douglas, aerial refueling, Ground warfare, Air Force Reserves, Teal Group, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter  
•       •       •

18515 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2013 at 9:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



316 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-17 11:25:51 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: A10Mechanic: I need CAS, send in a drone!

SAID NO GROUND-POUNDER EVER!

THIS


That is a crock of crap.  If the unit gets the job done the ground pounder is not going to care if it is an A-10, a drone, an F-15, a hot air balloon, a B-17 or a Sopwith Camel.
 
2013-09-17 11:30:01 PM  

Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: This, too, can take out a tank from the air:


And, it can be mounted on a drone!

The first shot fired in the Iraq War in 2003 was an Apache that fired one of those and hit an M-1. The M-1 needed some paint.


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 229x354]

OK, fair enough.  But that proves nothing except that in that situation a Hellfire missile barely scratched an M-1 tank.  I am pretty sure that in that particular war our troops were not going up against M-1 tanks.  Now how does the Hellfire fare against the tanks of other nations.  THAT is the question that truly matters.  How it fares against our own tanks is irrelevant.


Probably pretty well against the vast majority of tanks we face.
 
2013-09-17 11:48:08 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: This, too, can take out a tank from the air:


And, it can be mounted on a drone!

The first shot fired in the Iraq War in 2003 was an Apache that fired one of those and hit an M-1. The M-1 needed some paint.


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 229x354]

OK, fair enough.  But that proves nothing except that in that situation a Hellfire missile barely scratched an M-1 tank.  I am pretty sure that in that particular war our troops were not going up against M-1 tanks.  Now how does the Hellfire fare against the tanks of other nations.  THAT is the question that truly matters.  How it fares against our own tanks is irrelevant.

Probably pretty well against the vast majority of tanks we face.


Oh, wait, was I supposed to be a monumental ass when replying to your post?  If so, my sincerest of apologies.  I sometimes forget and act civilized on Fark.

:-D
 
2013-09-18 01:51:58 AM  

Kittypie070: 2wolves: ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.

Kabar, as one example.

I need someone to teach me how to fight with a Kabar. I has one and I love the thing dearly.


1/leave kabar in sheath
2/use a firearm
 
2013-09-18 02:17:19 AM  

bukijin: Kittypie070: 2wolves: ModeratelyProfane: Newer isn't always better, chum.

Kabar, as one example.

I need someone to teach me how to fight with a Kabar. I has one and I love the thing dearly.

1/leave kabar in sheath
2/use a firearm


Awwwwwww :(
 
2013-09-18 03:14:11 AM  
Are you talking about fighting or playing at fighting ?

fighting with a knife (for what it is worth)...
knife is sharp so you don't need much (any) force to do lethal damage. Forget big slashes or big lunges which give them a chance to take it off you.

never point it at yourself - cut away from yourself - grip it firmly

2 possible strategies are to keep it hidden or to use it as a guard. A knife is better at attack than defense but if they have a weapon then go for their fingers.

knife is just one weapon in your arsenal so think about fighting not fighting-with-a-knife.

Any incident involving a knife is going to be beyond nasty and become an abattoir really quickly so it better be a life or death situation.

unarmed defense a knife is impossible.


Never trust your own personal safety to some free advice from some random guy on the internet. Find a good teacher if you really want to know.
 
2013-09-18 06:42:54 AM  

Silverstaff: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.

Not everyone.

People on the ground don't give a fark.  The Raptor is an air-to-air platform only.  No close air support capability.  No ability to directly influence land warfare.  It is outstanding at air superiority, the best air superiority fighter ever built by mankind. . .but for all you rule the air, the battle is ultimately won by the boots on the ground, and for that you need soldiers and/or marines and they need air support (of which the A-10 is the most outstanding aircraft for that role ever built, it's as good for CAS as the F-22 is for air superiority).


That is highly dependent on what you are fighting.

Outside of tanks I would prefer a cobra flying around if I was on the ground.
 
2013-09-18 08:24:40 AM  

Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: Ricardo Klement: Mock26: This, too, can take out a tank from the air:


And, it can be mounted on a drone!

The first shot fired in the Iraq War in 2003 was an Apache that fired one of those and hit an M-1. The M-1 needed some paint.


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 229x354]

OK, fair enough.  But that proves nothing except that in that situation a Hellfire missile barely scratched an M-1 tank.  I am pretty sure that in that particular war our troops were not going up against M-1 tanks.  Now how does the Hellfire fare against the tanks of other nations.  THAT is the question that truly matters.  How it fares against our own tanks is irrelevant.

Probably pretty well against the vast majority of tanks we face.

Oh, wait, was I supposed to be a monumental ass when replying to your post?  If so, my sincerest of apologies.  I sometimes forget and act civilized on Fark.

:-D


Plus, really, there are a host of reasons why that particular hellfire didn't penetrate that particular tank. Weird things happen in war, and black swans abound. (On of the chief problems with classic wargames is their inability to capture highly unlikely results that empirically happened.)
 
2013-09-18 08:30:19 AM  

liam76: Silverstaff: Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.fly-fighter-jet.com image 560x340]

Hai Guyz!  What's goin' on in this thread?

When F22 Raptors show up, everyone bugs out.  EVERYONE.

Not everyone.

People on the ground don't give a fark.  The Raptor is an air-to-air platform only.  No close air support capability.  No ability to directly influence land warfare.  It is outstanding at air superiority, the best air superiority fighter ever built by mankind. . .but for all you rule the air, the battle is ultimately won by the boots on the ground, and for that you need soldiers and/or marines and they need air support (of which the A-10 is the most outstanding aircraft for that role ever built, it's as good for CAS as the F-22 is for air superiority).

That is highly dependent on what you are fighting.

Outside of tanks I would prefer a cobra flying around if I was on the ground.


Not sure. If given the choice, one thing I'd want to know is what their relative loiter times are. If I can have the A-10 for 2 hours and the AH-1 for 1 hour, I might go for the A-10 regardless of target. That should help inform your decision as to whether you prefer one aircraft over another.
 
2013-09-18 08:48:32 AM  

Ricardo Klement: their relative loiter times


Good point.
 
2013-09-18 12:47:18 PM  
sprawl15: Yes, it is. It's a development contract, and changes to engineering require an engineering change proposal that has to be approved by AF contracting before such a change can be made. Those changes require a significant amount of justification and risk assessment, which are usually balanced against a cost assessments, but the US doesn't care about Boeing's extra costs. The ridiculous procurement process (from the original lease, to the Drunyan scandal, to the award and retraction etc) resulted in a very explicit document. It's one of the best contracts in terms of watertightness that the government has ever put together, and I can't for the farking life of me figure out why Boeing signed up to it as-is.

For those of us who aren't in the know, can you take a step back and explain this to us? Boeing is basically on the hook for spec-less open-ended contract?
 
2013-09-18 01:21:38 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: [upload.wikimedia.org image 850x637]
[www.darkgovernment.com image 368x259] [www.sldinfo.com image 720x540]

This should put everyone's mind at ease.. no worries A-10's replacement is100X more capable.



Not according to Jane's Defense Weekly.
 
2013-09-18 04:03:12 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Plus, really, there are a host of reasons why that particular hellfire didn't penetrate that particular tank. Weird things happen in war, and black swans abound. (On of the chief problems with classic wargames is their inability to capture highly unlikely results that empirically happened.)


One of the other problems is that when one side thinks out of the box, the box thinkers put them back in the box.
 
2013-09-18 04:17:52 PM  

dittybopper: Ricardo Klement: Plus, really, there are a host of reasons why that particular hellfire didn't penetrate that particular tank. Weird things happen in war, and black swans abound. (On of the chief problems with classic wargames is their inability to capture highly unlikely results that empirically happened.)

One of the other problems is that when one side thinks out of the box, the box thinkers put them back in the box.


Yeah, no. That's not what I was talking about when I was talking "classic wargames". And much more is made of that Millennium Challenge than it deserves.

(Besides - you just flew lots of very expensive people, some of whom from thousands of miles away, and, what, you're NOT going to refloat the fleet and play again?)

You have to remember a game is only as good as the people who designed it. Don't let the fact computers were involved make you think there was substantial rigor in the realism of that game.
 
2013-09-18 04:25:04 PM  

bukijin: Are you talking about fighting or playing at fighting ?

fighting with a knife (for what it is worth)...
knife is sharp so you don't need much (any) force to do lethal damage. Forget big slashes or big lunges which give them a chance to take it off you.

never point it at yourself - cut away from yourself - grip it firmly

2 possible strategies are to keep it hidden or to use it as a guard. A knife is better at attack than defense but if they have a weapon then go for their fingers.

knife is just one weapon in your arsenal so think about fighting not fighting-with-a-knife.

Any incident involving a knife is going to be beyond nasty and become an abattoir really quickly so it better be a life or death situation.

unarmed defense a knife is impossible.


Never trust your own personal safety to some free advice from some random guy on the internet. Find a good teacher if you really want to know.


[emphasis added for best parts]

Thank you :)
 
2013-09-18 04:38:55 PM  

Ricardo Klement: The F-22 is a spectacular aircraft. The F-35 is primarily a replacement for the F-18 and also a replacement for the Harrier. It's really being driven by the Dept. of the Navy, not the Air Force.


The F-22 is spectacular on paper and at air shows. Its FMC rate is spectacular...ly bad.

Remember, there's more than one version of the F-35, and the Air Force has fully committed to the F-35A, which is intended to replace the F-16 and A-10.
 
Displayed 16 of 316 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report