BF2S Forums Coolest plane thread

I doubt an F35 can replace an A10.

A10s can use AGM-88s to destroy radar emplacements, if flies slow so it can use terrain for cover much better than an F35. There are 11 hardpoints on an A10. That thing is more versatile than anything. I can't even begin to name all the possibilities it has.

Pace, you're a good fellow, but if you think the F35, a multi-role fighter with like 5 hardpoints and a 20mm pea-gun can do a better job at CAS, tank busting, and just plain fucking shit up, than a plane that was built from the ground up to do it; you have mental problems

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I doubt an F35 can replace an A10.

A10s can use AGM-88s to destroy radar emplacements, if flies slow so it can use terrain for cover much better than an F35. There are 11 hardpoints on an A10. That thing is more versatile than anything. I can't even begin to name all the possibilities it has.

Pace, you're a good fellow, but if you think the F35, a multi-role fighter with like 5 hardpoints and a 20mm pea-gun can do a better job at CAS, tank busting, and just plain fucking shit up, than a plane that was built from the ground up to do it; you have mental problems

Let's solve the argument. Maybe my argument sucked, yeah... but I think the F-35 is better because it's able to do air to air fighting much more potently then the A-10 was, and in theory, sustain less hits because the planes shooting at it are shot down.

Although, stopping to engage aircraft does take time away from the mission, and the A-10 did have solid titanium armour, so...

Dammit, FEOS and sh1fty are right. grrr.

Or, we can look at it like this

We have a tank problem:



And a solution:



And an oops:



And an ovverride:

You've been quiet, pace.

Jaekus wrote:

You've been quiet, pace.

A week at the cottage. No internet there. I'm back now.

On topic, I like how they sacrificed armament for speed on the bombers in the late 50's and onward. Good move.

mcminty wrote:

FEOS - I can't exactly recall, but you are in the USAF, right?

One reason I'm agreeing with him.

The other reason is I did a little research noob and found out he's right.

And aussie, the Japanese sacrificed everything for maneuverability. Look at the zero, it's a skeleton. Kinda why the US pilots switched to hit and run tactics because the A6M's could outturn almost anything non-Japanese in a dogfight.

AussieReaper wrote:

They could also fly much further on the same amount of petrol, so the US honestly believed the Japanese had a larger carrier fleet when they saw so many fighters such a distance from land.

That makes sense. The lesened weight really would make fuel consumption very low.

rdx-fx wrote:

The F-35 will never properly replace the A-10, for the same reason the V-22 will never properly replace helicopters:

The F-35 and V-22 are designed 'delicate', like a high-flying fighter aircraft or long haul airliner.
The A-10 and helicopters are designed 'rugged', to be down in the dirt, not fall apart when shaken and vibrated, and designed to take small arms fire without falling out of the sky immediately.


It's akin to asking a Formula 1 race car designer to build a faster armored personnel carrier;
He might come up with something that looks like an APC, but the design methodology is going to draw too heavily on the Formula 1 methods.
And hence, be a little too fragile in practical use.

It'll replace the hornet fine enough, kinda, I guess.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I doubt an F35 can replace an A10.

A10s can use AGM-88s to destroy radar emplacements, if flies slow so it can use terrain for cover much better than an F35. There are 11 hardpoints on an A10. That thing is more versatile than anything. I can't even begin to name all the possibilities it has.

Pace, you're a good fellow, but if you think the F35, a multi-role fighter with like 5 hardpoints and a 20mm pea-gun can do a better job at CAS, tank busting, and just plain fucking shit up, than a plane that was built from the ground up to do it; you have mental problems

I agree with you on most parts. But an A-10 can't carry a HARM since it's not a SEAD platform (way too slow, no radar etc.).

rdx-fx wrote:

The F-35 will never properly replace the A-10, for the same reason the V-22 will never properly replace helicopters:

The F-35 and V-22 are designed 'delicate', like a high-flying fighter aircraft or long haul airliner.
The A-10 and helicopters are designed 'rugged', to be down in the dirt, not fall apart when shaken and vibrated, and designed to take small arms fire without falling out of the sky immediately.

I guess we aren't talking about the same V22 Osprey? Because the Osprey can lose two blades and still fly home. I'll admit she's vulnerable when landing but lets not exaggerate to prove something here.

Pace, there's no need for debate. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about with some different vehicles.

Bradley vs Abrams

The Bradley is a multi-role vehicle, it's got TOWs and a bushmaster so it can do several roles. It can kill tanks, but it's not designed to go up against tanks specifically. Then you've got the Abrams, which is designed to take huge damage and keep dishing out massive fire power.

It's the same thing with the F35. The F35 might be able to blow a T72 and engage some Migs too. The A10 isn't MADE TO FIGHT MIGS so it doesn't engage them. That's what the F35 is for. The F35 shoots the planes down so the A10 can do the ground job.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

The F-35 will never properly replace the A-10, for the same reason the V-22 will never properly replace helicopters:

The F-35 and V-22 are designed 'delicate', like a high-flying fighter aircraft or long haul airliner.
The A-10 and helicopters are designed 'rugged', to be down in the dirt, not fall apart when shaken and vibrated, and designed to take small arms fire without falling out of the sky immediately.

I guess we aren't talking about the same V22 Osprey? Because the Osprey can lose two blades and still fly home. I'll admit she's vulnerable when landing but lets not exaggerate to prove something here.

Pace, there's no need for debate. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about with some different vehicles.

Bradley vs Abrams

The Bradley is a multi-role vehicle, it's got TOWs and a bushmaster so it can do several roles. It can kill tanks, but it's not designed to go up against tanks specifically. Then you've got the Abrams, which is designed to take huge damage and keep dishing out massive fire power.

It's the same thing with the F35. The F35 might be able to blow a T72 and engage some Migs too. The A10 isn't MADE TO FIGHT MIGS so it doesn't engage them. That's what the F35 is for. The F35 shoots the planes down so the A10 can do the ground job.

Agreed, sorry about my argumentativeness.

Good god you guys are lame.

eskimo_sammyjoe wrote:

Good god you guys are lame.