On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 6:59:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:30:55 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:

On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:18:53 PM UTC-7, wrote:



On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:07:42 PM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:



On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:31:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:



On Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:08:53 AM UTC-4, jon_banquer wrote:



The A-10 Thunderbolt II & GAU-8 Avenger:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHv50lXfDHQ



Yeah, but I don't really believe in manned aircraft that



much any more, because the ground-to-air stuff is too strong.



Its better that military aircraft are un-manned.



Sorry but I could not agree less.



Watch all the video links I put up. Military personal will describe



what the A-10 does that nothing else can do. You need to



understand why it's important to loiter on the battlefield and



why you often need a human to observe with their own eyes and



make decisions.



The Air Force doesn't want the A-10 anymore, they have never



really wanted it.



The Army wants the A-10 because it's their best friend. They are the one's who tell A-10 pilots what they need it to do.



Yeah, but the idea is still that what's being shot at the A-10 at the end of the Vietnam war (when it came into service) like projectiles moving at Mach 5 or so is not the best of what it has to face now (stuff like laser beams that can melt/blast/vaporize to hell stuff at over 60 miles away - possible from several modern industrialized nations).



Don't believe me? Lets look at the never-ending conflict on the Israeli border. Do you realize what the Israeli military is using when the say the phrase "iron dome" ?? Jon, there is also use of a computer controlled .3006 inch, 7.62mm mini-gun like ground-to-air assembly that can not only shoot down enemy in-coming rockets, mortars, cannon-shells, etc..., but has also suceeded in shooting down OTHER 7.62 millimeter rounds.



Can you believe that? A computer that can shoot another bullet down with the same type of bullet? Its also backed up with ground-to-air missiles and computer controlled laser technology. Its possible to shoot down an armored ballistic missile at over 60 miles away - I mean vaporize it, with it moving at speeds of over Mach 10.



Now. With stuff like that, you couldn't even FIND the leftover debris of a lumbering 300mph 1970's era A-10.



That's why the Air Force is backing away from this thing and replacing it and the Harrier Jump Jet with the F-35.



It carries just as much firepower, but it can land vertically making radar detection by stuff like this tougher. It can rise back up into the air and attack almost like a helicopter against this kind of stuff.



A-10s need too much room to land and take back off for that.



(its just a matter of physics - but the A-10 Thunderbolt II has to go.. Sorry)



The F35 is a lemon.



Not perfect planes yes, I agree. But, both it and its slower predecessor the Harrier can duck out of sight at will, though. And that is needed more than the A-10, today.



Stealth doesn't work.



Usually, not. And if you notice, only the US seems to be making "stealth" aircraft. That means the other great powers on the face of the earth seem to agree with you. And they are making more thorough radar assembly all the time - which makes things even worse for aircraft.



I think the idea is that stealth technology works unpredictably. Sometimes it can accidentally be seen, sometimes not.



I've seen some pro's and con's with Stealth tech. Most notoriously, the British Navy claim they see its reflection on the surface of the water. But some people claim that that's the case with modern non-stealth aircraft today, too. So in short, you may be stealthy or not. Its a roll of the dice..

No argument with what you wrote on stealth.

As far as the F-35/JSF is concerned, I'm convinced lots of the orders for it will be canceled. This is what happens when you try and make a plane do everything. It's a compromise just like an amphibious vehicle... it's not a good car and it's not a good boat.