Warbirds Thread

paulobrito

Well-known member
PGMs are good and all but the closer they are to the ground they can often react better.
The A10 allows for gun runs and not just PGMs.
"Oh I'm out if PGMs and Air won't be back for like 10 minutes"
Shit I need air but they left.

That is about the main thing CAS helps wirh.
In that case, 'just' use a B-52 loaded with lots and lots of PGM's. Many hours on site, lots of ammo, and safe out of enemy range.

Out of curiosity - how many - if adapted to use them - Brainstorm-2/3 or Hammer can the BUFF carry? I bet a fuck ton of these babies.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
CAS - has in Close Air Support - is placing explosives near your forces, not flying near the enemy forces.
Until the advent of PGMs (in industrial quantity), yes, it is necessary to fly low and slow on enemy fire range, but today, no, nope. Heck, you can do most of the said job with drones, if the environment is permissive enough. If not, F-16, or even better Rafale, can do it from long ranges much safer. Not even talking of, in the near future, F-35, and other stealth platforms.
Again, ground pounders don't like it because they fly casualy around up high and have no fear and drop thier bombs then are off for awhile.
CAS is better when they can do more then just drop vomvd and fly away. Having a gun helps with light armor and infantry.
An apache has more then just PGMs for a reason.
In that case, 'just' use a B-52 loaded with lots and lots of PGM's. Many hours on site, lots of ammo, and safe out of enemy range.
...you do know that isn't how it works, especially since PGMs are aimed differently then from how a B 52 could do.

I am telling you from someone on the ground.
 

paulobrito

Well-known member
Again, ground pounders don't like it because they fly casualy around up high and have no fear and drop thier bombs then are off for awhile.
CAS is better when they can do more then just drop vomvd and fly away. Having a gun helps with light armor and infantry.
An apache has more then just PGMs for a reason.

...you do know that isn't how it works, especially since PGMs are aimed differently then from how a B 52 could do.

I am telling you from someone on the ground.

Funny, but the Us as done that several times already...
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Funny, but the Us as done that several times already...
Yes.
But what the AF wants and likes compared to the Army differs.
There is a reason the Army is going towards something a lot more like a plane for CAS.
Fuck the AF
 

paulobrito

Well-known member
Yes.
But what the AF wants and likes compared to the Army differs.
There is a reason the Army is going towards something a lot more like a plane for CAS.
Fuck the AF
To be fair, in many cases is the usual problem of communication/support inter-service.
You know, the real enemies, right?
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
A joint use aircraft is more viable on a contested battlefield then an attacker like the A10.
The A10 is great once Air dominance has been achieved but until then a joint use fighter is more viable.


A human wouldn't really be able to do much maneuverability at those speeds. Remember a SR 71 blackbird wasn't a dog fighter for a reason.

It would have to be a drone, and the thing is it moves so fast you may not be able to use it to lock on to a moving target.
It does not have to engage moving targets. It just have to penetrate enemy airspace release it's ordinance for like 40 to 50 miles away and literally outrun any all all missiles thrown at it. At over Mach 5 in speed that would be very much doable.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
To be fair, in many cases is the usual problem of communication/support inter-service.
You know, the real enemies, right?
That is true.
It does not have to engage moving targets. It just have to penetrate enemy airspace release it's ordinance for like 40 to 50 miles away and literally outrun any all all missiles thrown at it. At over Mach 5 in speed that would be very much doable.
And there is a reason we never did that with the SR 71.
Opening a bomb bay at that speed would rip them off....
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
And there is a reason we never did that with the SR 71. Opening a bomb bay at that speed would rip them off....

Not if the bay doors are designed to deploy at that speed. The YF-12 fighter version of the Oxcart successfully launched AIM-47 Falcon missiles from internal bays across multiple test shots while flying at speeds of up to Mach 3.2, and of course, the entire Valkyrie bomber project would not have gotten off the ground if it was inherently impossible to operate bomb bays at speed.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
3.2
Not 5.
And ye you could but it is still not possible to have a fighter be able to go hypersonic and be able to engage where and when needed.

Because to get to thay speed is the hard part from the ground
 

bintananth

behind a desk
Back to one of the classics:


The Army bought one. The Navy bought three. The Navy used one to take off from a ship (14 Nov 1910) and land on a ship (18 Jan 1911).

The 112th anniversary of the latter feat is one week away.
 
Last edited:

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
That is true.

And there is a reason we never did that with the SR 71.
Opening a bomb bay at that speed would rip them off....
You do realize it would be doing it's bombing run at altitudes above 100,000 feet right. And the Bomb bay would be specially designed like others have pointed out.
 

paulobrito

Well-known member
So...why did we not keep using it if it was so damn fast....
Zac, Zac, don't be your usual bad loser...
First, you said can't be done, then that is not done - Yes can be done and the - The US does it (like the USSR/Russia with the MiG-25 and 31). Is not just economic or necessary for the US.
And, btw, is not necessary/useful for Mach 5 interceptors, because already exist Mach 6+ AAMs and Mach 8+ SAMs.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
So...why did we not keep using it if it was so damn fast....
For the same reason you don't fly the SR-71 over non third world countries anymore. It may be fast, but now there are missiles with a good chance to catch it anyway.
Meanwhile the tradeoffs for being so fast are terrible in terms of payload, agility, maintenance, nevermind total, absolute lack of stealth.
 

paulobrito

Well-known member
Yep, for starters, the SR-71 is very easy to track because is heat signature and heat trail...
Also, is turning rate is measured in nations, not kilometers...
Is simple, not useful anymore, with the possibility of lots of cheap, low orbit sats...
Tech turned them obsolete/redundant.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Yep, for starters, the SR-71 is very easy to track because is heat signature and heat trail...
Also, is turning rate is measured in nations, not kilometers...
Is simple, not useful anymore, with the possibility of lots of cheap, low orbit sats...
Tech turned them obsolete/redundant.
TBH lower altitude recon than sats still has plenty of niches. Like being able to go under cloud cover to make photos.
Even U-2 still may be in limited use for this reason.

What really killed new spy planes are advances in long range recon drones, for the simple fact that there is no political mess with killed/captured pilot if they are sent to high risk missions and shit happens.
And for a low risk mission, well, you can pull out RC-135, RC-12X or old U-2, if you really need something manned.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top