I just realised you can't win a conventional war without

Vietnam and goatfuckers did pretty well

>>32353136
>conventional

>>32353136
Friendly reminder that America absolutely BTFO-ed North Vietnam and won the war.

If the North successfully invaded the South after the American retreat its all the fault of commie infiltrators and democraps

File: nison-and-kissinger.jpg (20KB, 400x298px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 400x298px

>>32353155
The political outcome is the only thing that matters. Warfare 101. If the goal of the war was to prevent South Vietnam becoming communist, than the war was lost.

Also the withdrawal of American forces was done by a Republican president you tard

>>32353219
But it was the democrats who didnt full fill the commitment to help South Vietnam in the eventuality of another war you mong.

What is the s-400

>>32353131

Short answer; you are not. At least to the degree that a side with an edge in air support has a drastic advantage.

Long answer; when dealing with the concept of air supremacy, you have a metric fuckton of logistical and tactical of variables involved in even reaching out and touching something with a combat sortie without just throwing planes into a melee and turning them into multi-million dollar exploding lawn darts.

Type of combat airframe, combat readiness and maintenance schedule on said airframe, availability of manpower/parts/munitions/etc.,not to mention the proliferation of any MANPADs or ground based Anti-Air platforms that would ostensibly ruin any pilots day, availability of serviceable airfields, and all of this just the tip of the iceberg before you even get into what the other combatants may be fielding.

long answer conclusion: i mentioned air supremacy as a concept because it is exactly that, a concept. you can achieve degrees of parity, but unless you're going up against a shitstain country like Afghanistan, in a conventional war with a militarily solvent country, your shit is always going to be some degree of wrecked. Doubly so if its the USAF youre working with.

File: REEEEEEEEEEEEE.jpg (111KB, 588x588px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 588x588px

>>32353219
>than

>>32353131
Pretty wrong, a fuck ton of artillery could probably work better in some ways.

File: I AM THE ONE THE ONE I DON'T NEED A GUN TO GET RESPECT UP ON THE STREET UNDER THE SUN THE BASTARD SON WILL POP THE GLOCK TO FEED HIMSELF AND FAMILY BY ANY MEANS MY ENEMIES WE WORK THEM UP LIKE A CANTEEN.jpg (78KB, 960x450px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 960x450px

>>32354062
Arty can't be shot down, true, but planes can go much further, and can hit multiple targets in one sortie, provided they have support from tankers, and are careful with their munition usage. A-10Cs are the kings of ground attack and support, have enough munition capacity to last lengthy missions, or hit several targets in one sortie, and provided some F-22s are providing overwatch and they have access to tankers, they'd probably make a great attack force.
>>32353155
I blame Walter Cronkite for our loss. He decided that his shitty anti-American agenda was worth more than honor and the lives of thousands of soldiers. We kicked VC's ass during the Tet offensive and he fucking knew it, but because of his "WE LOST THAT SHIT, IT'S A USELESS WAR! GIVE UP NOW!" we took a blow to morale that was just enough to fuck our shit up. Now we're the fucking laughingstock of southeast Asia, and everyone I talk to thinks that WE lost the war. Fucking libshits.
>>32353155
FUCKING.
THIS.
THE BLAME ALSO SITS ON SOUTH VIETNAM'S APATHY AND INCOMPETENCE.
>>32353219
KEKS LEAVE NOW


Goddammit, I should be memorizing the resistor value color code thing right now, but all I'm doing is "REEEEE"-ing about libshits fucking up.

>>32354062
In a conventional war your enemy is likely to have air power, if you do not have air superiority your artillery doesn't mean dick.
Yes OP you faggot thanks for realizing what has been common knowledge for the last century.

>>32354179

>A-10Cs are the kings of ground attack and support.

The B1 would like a word.

>>32354179
Jesus Christ you A-10 fags are deluded and pathetic.

>>32354758
Bone is a bomber. I was talking about CAS.
>>32354800
Better than a plane that BSODs in mid-air.

>>32354179
>A-10Cs are the kings of ground attack and support
They were obsolete by the 80's.

>>32354947
That's the A-10A, you fucking mong. The A-10C was an update.

>>32354980
They were obsolete by the 80's.

>>32354913
Yes, it is a bomber. It also does CAS.

>>32354999
>If I repeat my statement, he'll cease his arguing!
The A-10C update took place in 2005. It doesn't matter if the A-10A was obsolete in the 80's. The point is the A-10C is up-to-date. Against ISIS you can't get anything better, and if we end up fighting Turkey or NK or what-the-fuck-ever, the plane will still suffice in CAS.
>>32355062
If I'm storming a fucking city and I come across an APC or what-the-fuck-ever, I'm not likely to trust 5 JDAMs coming down on my fucking head to eliminate the threat and keep me alive at the same time.

If I hear anyone mention the fucking Super Tucano, I'm gonna pop a blood vessel.

>>32353131
Airspace was literally shut down over Ukraine without using air superiority aircraft (just SAMs). However, if you are asking if it is possible to win a conventional war in spite of no protection against aerial indirection, CAS, bombing then the answer is usually no. The only exception would be small countries fighting against one another where their air forces are too small or incompetent to be much of consequence.

>>32353219
>The political outcome is the only thing that matters. Warfare 101.
So US decisively won the war? Even if it took 30-40 years Vietnam is pretty tame at the moment.

>>32355082
The concept of a slow heavily armored plane that flies below 30,000ft to attack things is obsolete.
Every sandnigger and their dog has cheap Russkie and Chink MANPADs now.

>>32355082

>but you don't understand
>my fav plane is def better for CAS than a supersonic bomber that flies higher, has more payload, and has had more successful sorties in both recent Iraq wars

k is really fucking retarded about planes

>>32355281

and pretty much everything else...

>>32353227
>Gerald R. Ford
>Democrat

nice job knowing fuck all about history ya hack

>>32355082
>If I'm storming a fucking city and I come across an APC or what-the-fuck-ever, I'm not likely to trust 5 JDAMs coming down on my fucking head to eliminate the threat and keep me alive at the same time.

Good thing that you're not in the army then and that even if you by some miracle were conscripted nobody would give a shit about whichever cannon fodder unit you'd be shunted into in the first place

>>32355511
>Congress doesn't exist

File: 1452092473770.jpg (747KB, 1286x864px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 1286x864px

>>32355205
>But muh MANPADs!
That's what armor and countermeasures are for, fuckhead. Just because they have them doesn't mean they're effective.
>>32355254
It doesn't really fucking matter that the thing can carry more shit, fly high, and go faster if it can't fucking do the job as effectively. You don't use MIRVs to remove a tumor.
>>32355528
>If I insult the value of his life, he'll give up!
Expert tactics right here.
>The US doesn't care about the well-being of its units
I honestly am having trouble believing you aren't a commie. Did you happen to read the memoirs of a few commissars within the past few moths?

>>32355634
>That's what armor and countermeasures are for, fuckhead.
if it can get fucked up by 23mm, a MANPAD will pierce through it like a hot knife through butter.

>>32355665
And what of the countermeasures? And the reliability? What about the safeguards the A-10 was designed with?

>>32353219
The political goal was to stop the spread of communism in Asia, which it did. Notice how after China, North Korea, and Vietnam there weren't any more commie countries in east Asia? Domino effect contained, Cold War won.

>>32353281
Air supremacy

>>32355198
Except the fall of communism in Asia had nothing to do with the Vietnam war.

>Its an A-10 fag is painfully ignorant episode

my favorite rerun!

Everyone who wants to "win" a war against the US raise your hand!

After we bomb N. Vietnam back the Stone Age and killed close to a million VC and NVA. We got bored and went home. After making the north cry Uncle and promise not to invade the south, the commies invaded anyway and the damn arvn folded like origami.

So if any one else would like to win a war, we promise to do our best to grind you into the ground.

>>32356081
Give me some reasons the B-1 can hit as accurately and safely as an A-10. Or why the F-35 is better.

>>32356112
>This whole won/lost discussion

Is /k/ really this ignorant about the Vietnam war? You are talking like a bunch of fucking checkers players. This shit was chess.

We knew in the mid 60s that the war was "unwinnable" in the sense of stopping the North without triggering a broader war involving the Chinese and possibly the Soviets. The "South" Vietnamese hated their rulers.

If we had picked Ho Chi Minh as "our son of a bitch" in the 50s, we might have been able to have a client state there, but as with Cuba, we got cucked by the hotheads who actually believed that Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Arabs, and Subsaharan Africans actually gave a shit about muh communism until they became fully Soviet clients. They were just saying that shit to get out from the yoke of Western Colonialism using Soviet rhetoric. Because our policy since the Atlantic Charter was to force decolonization on the Third World, some of these faggots thought we would be on their team, but since the Soviet Union was the bigger threat we couldn't cuck France and the UK too much, but imho we cucked them too much anyway.

But we didn't support them. So, when they declared as Interntional pinkos, we had to fight them and here's the key:

WE HAD TO MAKE IT AS COSTLY AS POSSIBLE.

If we had just said in 1963 or 1964--oh look, we can't win against Ho because our rulers there are evil bastards that literally no one in the population supports and left, then the domino theory would have gone into overdrive.

The mistake the libtards made was thinking that there was no use is doing this. The mistake the conservatives made was caring whether we won. Who gives a shit about a poor gook shithole. The point was to stop or retard the expansion of communism. Mission fucking accomplished.

Then we made them pay in Afghanistan and they died because they couldn't take the hit we took.

Totally fucking wrong
Air power is actually an extremely overrated meme

Ground forces are better bang for buck

You could buy so many SPAAG's that your ground forces would be invincible for the cost of a modest airforce

>>32355738

Modern IR seekers have a good chance to differentiate between flares and the target aircraft.

The titanium armor of the A-10 was mostly around the pilot of the aircraft, the aircraft itself has many redundant systems, but is still probably going to be an airframe write-off if it takes a missile hit or AAA fire.

The A-10 was designed when the frontline SPAAG of the Warsaw Pact was the Shilka 23mm. The move to a 30mm gun on the Tunguska in the 80s (and later Pantsir) , combined with IR SAMs more powerful than a MANPADS was in large part to counter the A-10.

>>32356187
I think pretending the US was anti-communist at all is nonsense.
Vietnam war was about harming the USA, not about fighting communism

The US was gleefully aiding communists throughout Africa
Then in Europe when it came to Albania/Bosnia

>>32356127

>B-1 can hit as accurately and safely as an A-10.

The B-1 can drop the same PGMs as the A-10, with a far far bigger payload. I personally wouldn't call it a CAS platform, since it still is at heart a strategic bomber, but when used for CAS it is incredibly impressive.

>Or why the F-35 is better.

Well, for starters, because the A-10 is utterly dependant on SEAD aircraft to make it to a combat area against an enemy with an IADS, is banished from its low altitude raison d'être by an enemy with MANPADS and modern SPAAGs, is incapable of swing-role usage, is slower to respond (and has a shorter range).

File: Kim_campbell_damage_a10.jpg (64KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 640x480px

>>32356240
>Modern IR seekers have a good chance to differentiate between flares and the target aircraft.
Alright, I can see your point there.
>probably going to be an airframe write-off if it takes a missile hit or AAA fire
Kim Campbell disagrees.
>The A-10 was designed when the frontline SPAAG of the Warsaw Pact was the Shilka 23mm. The move to a 30mm gun on the Tunguska in the 80s (and later Pantsir) , combined with IR SAMs more powerful than a MANPADS was in large part to counter the A-10.
Sooooo the MANPADs aren't relevant for that part of your argument, right? So wouldn't the low stall speed of the A-10 allow it to fly under most radar? What about the range and accuracy of the A-10's munitions? Wouldn't it be able to knock out the SPAAGs sooner?
>>32356302
>The B-1 can drop the same PGMs as the A-10, with a far far bigger payload. I personally wouldn't call it a CAS platform, since it still is at heart a strategic bomber, but when used for CAS it is incredibly impressive.
Meh, alright, I guess it would be good for long range usage, but in the end, wouldn't the ability of the A-10 to be put on the front lines and on almost any runway make it much better at responding to problems?
>the A-10 is utterly dependant on SEAD aircraft to make it to a combat area against an enemy with an IADS, is banished from its low altitude raison d'être by an enemy with MANPADS and modern SPAAGs, is incapable of swing-role usage, is slower to respond (and has a shorter range).
The Wild Weasels are pretty important either way. The F-35 just doesn't have the ability to carry enough weapons to take out enemy defenses and hit its target at the same time. This isn't Ace Combat. Plus, wouldn't coming in at mach 3/4 at low altitude reduce the chance of being hit with a MANPAD or with a SPAAG?

>>32356244
>Africa
>Communists

Again none of those people gave a shit about Marxism, it was calling themselves whatever was to their advantage. The people in our government that took them literally wanted to fight them. Those that didn't tried to suborn them and the liberals wanted to leave them alone to become real commies.

File: IMG_0731.jpg (37KB, 249x265px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 249x265px

>>32356386
Fucking hell, embarrassing noob questions. A-10 fags really are morons.

>>32354179
>Arty can't be shot down, true, but planes can go much further, and can hit multiple targets in one sortie, provided they have support from tankers, and are careful with their munition usage. A-10Cs are the kings of ground attack and support, have enough munition capacity to last lengthy missions, or hit several targets in one sortie, and provided some F-22s are providing overwatch and they have access to tankers, they'd probably make a great attack force.
I don't really know assuming neither side has a real air advantage the one with better artillery is probably going to win it's worked for quite a few countries. Artillery might advance more slowly but it can decimate a larger area than most plane loadouts, saturate it with fire that can knock pretty much anything out of a fight, and hold that ground afterward. Although it'd probably need as much of a supply network as airplanes would.

>>32356127
>as acurately
I believe modern guided munitions would be equally precise if launched from both platform
>as safely
The b1 flies faster and higher, has a lower RCS/size and better avionics/countermeasure.
Of course higher and faster isn't exactly the definition of CAS.

But today having an outdated airframe barely retrofitted to modern standard loiter at slow speed and low altitude over the battlefield is a pretty shitty idea. Modern MANPADs will grind through your warthog fleet pretty fast. That's why we don't deploy them much in these conditions.
And it isn't new, ask the ruskies how they enjoyed Afghanistan.

Have you watch the videos of combat in Syria and Iran? B1 and F-35 can take care of the armor and vehicles while being more protected from MANPADs.
Helos would do marvel gunning down the sandnigfers running around, but they are also very vulnerable.
Today CAS is difficult, and there isn't any good solution around that doesn't involve losing a lot of crafts.

>>32355062
B1 flies 2000 feet minimum, it can't do CAS.

>>32356671
Look, I'm just saying that at low altitude and somewhat high speeds, wouldn't the OPFOR have almost no time to lock on with MANPADs?
>>32356763
When I was talking about safety and accuracy, I was speaking in terms of avoiding damage to surrounding allies.

File: 1469036606100.gif (47KB, 250x194px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 250x194px

>>32356386
>So wouldn't the low stall speed of the A-10 allow it to fly under most radar?

This whole post is potato-tier, but that in particular got me.

Thanks for the laugh m8

>>32356763
>Today CAS is difficult, and there isn't any good solution around that doesn't involve losing a lot of crafts.

Yet somehow Desert Storm worked despite very well equipped Iraqis with ample MANPAD, SAM and AAA support in densities not seen since missions over Hanoi.

Missile freaks continually declare CAS (and tracked AFV on the ground) obsolete but that's not the case IRL. The race continues and successful APS tech for tanks is being brought to aircraft.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsrafael-develops-new-aps-for-helicopters

>>32356906
>Missile freaks continually declare CAS (and tracked AFV on the ground) obsolete

What in the absolute fuck are you talking about, nigger

CAS means fire close to friendlies. Not the firing platform close to the ground.

You could launch a missile from orbit and it could still be CAS

>>32356787
>In military tactics, close air support (CAS) is defined as air action by fixed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets, that are in close proximity to friendly forces

>>32353131
I'm a small country with 20 nukes and no air force. I don't care.

>>32355634
>It doesn't really fucking matter that the thing can carry more shit, fly high, and go faster if it can't fucking do the job as effectively. You don't use MIRVs to remove a tumor.
>Implying with PGMs that anything but haul capacity matters
The F-35 beats the fucking Warthog in both capacity and targeting accuracy, fuckboi.

>>32356127
>Give me some reasons the B-1 can hit as accurately and safely as an A-10. Or why the F-35 is better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2q65qOl1tM
That's "ID your pickup from nearly 50NMI and put and SDB into it" quality. And that's the decade-old version of the EO-TS they already have a drop-in upgrade ready and awaiting approval for.

File: 1473397332397.png (128KB, 291x300px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 291x300px

>>32353155
>wars are fought by militaries in total isolation from political outcomes
This is what brain-dead hicks ACTUALLY BELIEVE

>>32355747
Commies taking over South Vietnam is the opposite of stopping the spread, you retard.

>>32355082
>He actually thinks a slow armored plane that requires 100% air superiority to not get bodied could do anything against anything but mudslimes.

You A-10 babbies are delusional. Just because your planefu has a big gun that makes loud noises doesn't make it relevant in [CURRENT YEAR]. Since the skies have to be patrolled by fighters just to use this thing, multirole fighters are a much more practical means of eliminating ground targets.

>>32356906

Except the A-10 was removed from attacks on the Iraqi Republican Guard because they were competent enough to cause significant losses to them attempting to perform low altitude missions.

>>32356906
No they didn't. The USAF lost a lot of A-10s during this time period during to SAMs and AA.

>>32356763
>>32356905
>>32356972
>>32357054
>>32357107
Look, I'm not an expert, and I'm not the smartest fucker at times, so at this point, Idontfuckinknow. My point is just that the A-10C definitely has a place in modern military and is an awesome asset. I'm pretty fucking stupid with a lot of things, but even a dipshit like me knows that the A-10 has its advantages, and it can do things that not all aircraft can do. It's not perfect, but I'm sure it gets the job done. I'm sure that a lot of aircraft can do some shit better, but I'm still sticking by my belief that when it comes to up-front CAS, hitting dangerous targets, and taking fire, the A-10C is the queen of the skies. She's not the be-all-end-all of modern combat, I get that, but she's definitely a fucking beast in general fuck-your-shit-up territory.
Also, fuck single engines, the F-35 is still a special-snowflake meme jet.

>>32357279
I doubt you have an education on anything, let alone anything aviation related.

>>32357279
Does your mom know you're posting on a Tibetan tequila brewing theater?

>>32357306
Yeeeeaaaah pretty much this. Most of what I've got is from books, internet, and stories from my dad and granddad

>>32357279
>and it can do things that not all aircraft can do

like what

>>32357279
>Look, I'm not an expert, and I'm not the smartest fucker at times
So why are you arguing as if you know everything?

>>32357371
Pump out +1000 rounds of 30mm shells accurately at range in under 10 seconds.
>>32357383
Because I'm not the smartest fucker at times.

>>32357390
Your argument seriously boils down to BRRRRT

Which is also obsolete, it's not very effective at the anti-personnel role, and it's not effective against modern armor let alone armor then the A-10 was introduced.

>>32357279
fuck off.

>>32356386
Kim Campbell is also an outlying statistic. It's confirmation bias, we saw and A-10 take hits and return to base so people immediately think A-10s are super armored to the point that they can withstand anything thrown at it. Which is not true at all, shit like that happens all the time: wings fall off planes and they still fly, people get sucked into engines, people fall off buildings and walk away with no scratches. Just because it happened once doesn't mean it'll happen again. A-10s surviving this kind of damage is a statistical anomaly.

The F-35 does carry enough to hit SAM or radar AND continue on it's mission, worst case scenario, it can just avoid the sites by virtue of being stealthy. Also as the other anon said, modern Russian SPAAG is advanced enough to the point where it would be a suicide run with heavy casualties with minimal gain.

>>32357279
Get the fuck off this board listerinefag

>>32357371
Still get idiots defending its combat worthiness despite it having been obsolete and wasteful for nearly 30 years.

MC-130s are better and cheaper at the A-10s modern role anyways.

>>32354179
Filename

>>32357279

>hitting dangerous targets, and taking fire, the A-10C is the queen

Except that is exactly where it sucks, in a modern threat environment, the A-10 is a liability.

>Also, fuck single engines, the F-35 is still a special-snowflake meme jet.

Right, because the F-16, one of the most successful aircraft of the 4th gen jets, which still makes up the majority of the USAF, and many US allies air forces, sucks? A single, excellent engine, is a concious decision to reduce an aircraft's manufacturing & maintenance costs & man hours.

File: mine.png (1MB, 1260x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1260x1080px

CAS?
CAS CAS CAS CAS

>>32357468
Those man hours saved ain't worth much if the damn thing crashes before it can glide back to base. If we're talking about air superiority again, then the F-22 is King. F-15 is the prince. F-16s are cool and all, but if that engine conks out one day, you're pretty fucked.

>>32357537

The USAF has more F-16C/Ds in service than it has; A-10C, F-15C/D, F-15E, and F-22A put together. The F-16 is the multi-role workhorse of the USAF. This is in large part because by being a modest size single engine aircraft more of them can be procured and fielded.

A single well maintained jet engine is barely more likely to fail than a twin engine aircraft. Many of the likely sources of engine failure for a military aircraft will probably affect both engines.

>>32357640
Both at once? Besides, you can't be too careful.

>>32357663
not the other guy, but yes, if one engine goes out on a two engine plane you're in trouble. Planes with two engine have them because without two they would not fly very well (if at all).

>>32357663
Most engine failures affect both engines, and quite a few failures of one engine make the aircraft unrecoverable anyway.

Like that CF-18 that had a single engine stick to full thrust.

>>32357775
>>32357788
I really, really, really wanna call bullshit here, but I won't because it'll just blow up in my face.

>>32357421
>it can just avoid the sites by virtue of being stealthy.
And because the ASQ-239 Barracuda and MADL links are telling the pilot exactly where active threats are transmitting from and their threat hemispheres.

>>32357911
I'm glad you didn't say it then.

>>32357279
>Look, I'm not an expert
As clearly demonstrated by everything you said in that post being wrong. I'm sorry anon, but you should read up more on how modern combat works and not get your facts from memes.

>>32357911
Well, way back when planes were sometimes given extra engines because of thoughts on reliability, but aviation tech has advanced to the point where there's really not advantage to having two engines over one, it's just maintenance and cost intensive.

>>32356386
You're probably feeling bullied right now m8 but lockheed astroturfs /k/ to shill their jew money laundering plane. They don't have any arguments.

>>32358032
>I don't have any valid counterarguments so I'm going to call shill instead of admitting defeat

>>32358032
t. fairchild republic shill

>>32358074
That's actually more impressive, shilling for a company that doesn't even exist anymore.

>>32358032
>Actual arguments and logic
>Somehow shilling

lmao

>>32358032
>shill
>jew money laundering
>>>/pol/
Begone, retard

>>32356198
Bingo.

Hence why I said Air Supremacy is a mythical concept that the Air Force swinging dicks like to jaw about while theyre busy working their poor fucking maintenance crews to death on combat airframes that are so fucking old, and with parts that are so fucking broke, with such bad maintenance schedules, that its surprising the entirety of all the combat capable air wings arent broke off their ass.

>>32358467
That's not what shill means. It was originally the guy working for snake oil salesmen who pretended to be a part of the crowd and have the product demonstrated on him and extol its virtue.

>>32358478
Working their maintenance guys to death isn't really a fault of the US's idea of air superiority.

It's really a retention issue, no one wants to be maintenance in the military because it fucking sucks.

>>32355634
>can't fucking do the job as effectively.
Except it does. It does it more effectively actually. To the point that the majority of CAS missions in Afghanistan have been B1Bs.

>>32357344
Then shut the fuck up.

>>32356386
>The F-35 just doesn't have the ability to carry enough weapons to take out enemy defenses and hit its target at the same time
It can carry 18,000lbs of bombs. WTF are you talking about?

>>32358632
true insofar as retention is a big part of actually being able to get shit done. But getting into the reasons WHY being on a maintenance crew is a shit job, its symptomatic to the unrealistic full-spectrum readiness requirements that STRATCOM and the DSG are imposing while drastically cutting back on everything needed to effectively maintain combat airframes with the allotted time and personnel with the appropriate technical expertise, of which there are now MUCH fewer due to aforementioned DSG and solvency drawbacks.

Its compounded by the issue that the USAF logistics train is a complete and utter pile of indigestible fuck; wherin the AFMC somehow cannot acquire serviceable parts for fuck all anything that doesnt come from pakistan or some backdoor subcontractor.

Also the USAF is working on shit that's operating over twice its operational design lifespan. So eventually shit is just going to start disintegrating before we even get the F-35 combat ready.

>>32353131
Naw, you've got it anon.

>>32358797
Really what the US military needs to is find a way to encourage more people to work in maintenance. Through higher pay, bonuses, better benefits or something. That would probably never happen though.
Best case scenario is contractors they pay a lot of money to that get the jobs done.

That or just less fucking jets.

>>32358797
Eh, the F-35 will probably actually be a big help there, since it is designed from the start to be a lot easier to work on and need little to no guesswork on repairs.

>>32353136
No they didn't. K/D was what like 20/1 in that war?

Riceniggers were indisputably BTFO.

It's even more one sided in Iraq et al for the current war, it's like 500/1

>>32358991
I really doubt it will play out like that though

F-35b is probably going to be a complete pain in the ass to work on

>>32355634
>That's what armor and countermeasures are for, fuckhead.
Didn't help against SA-13 in Desert Storm.

>>32359064
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/absolute-youngest-marine-in-the-f-35-test-force-shares-1716981177

>“Next-generation is an understatement when applied to F-35. Keep in mind that this is the perspective of a maintainer, because they never would let me fly the darn thing. There was not a moment when I wasn’t infatuated with some detail of its construction, mission, or engineering. The maintainability factor is absolutely huge in comparison to platforms such as the F/A-18 or the AV-8B. In many cases, the aircraft seems as though it was designed with end-user practicality in mind, as opposed to the Hornet’s “need to replace a hydraulic pump? Great, remove all other things first” and the Harrier’s “engine replacement? That’s two wings coming off, baby!” Gone are the days of awful hi-torque fasteners that strip themselves out every time you look at them wrong. Behold, hex tips!

Nope.

>>32358824
Hell, they lose a lot of active duty pilots each year too just because the system is so mind numbingly retarded. Their amazing solution is to offer bonuses for staying

Lol

File: 1470104379320.jpg (37KB, 177x278px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 177x278px

>>32359112
>Foxtrotalpha

>>32359118
Oh yeah I forgot about that.

Why be in the Air Force dealing with a bunch of nonsense when you can fly for an airliner making 3x as much with a quarter of the bs?

Just giving them more money doesn't really solve issues like this

>>32358991
thats IF they can unfuck the test bed and get it combat capable.

>>32359168
First of all, because of those sweet bennies.

Secondly, because the airline industry is shit and has been shit forever because so many people want to be pilots.

More importantly, you get to work on fighter jets.

>>32359275
You do know the Air Force is losing fighter pilots faster than they can make them right?

They seriously have a huge fighter pilot retention problem

You also think the Air Force is the only organization that provides good benefits?

>>32359275
Why the fuck do you think they offer several hundred thousand dollar bonuses to fighter pilots?

That's because once their 12 years are up they fucking pull out and go work for the Airlines.

>>32359345
Last I heard a bunch of guys I knew who were flying commercial airliners were on food stamps and shit.

Havent looked into it myself but I actually hear the pay is shit as an airline pilot.

ATC is where its at apparently.

>>32359616
Starting off the pay is absolutely horrible.

But if you're flying commercial and hauling passengers the pay is great.
Median is $102k

Either your friends are in the very early stages of their careers where you make shit pay, or they are lying.

If you're an ex-mil pilot you're not going to start off getting paid like shit. You have 12 years in the military flying aircraft as experience. That's pretty a first officer position for you right there.

>>32359149
They aren't on the "auto-dismiss" list, dipshit.

>>32359251
>thats IF they can unfuck the test bed and get it combat capable.
You mean like in the June Mountain Home deployment, where it executed its mission sets flawlessly and had less maintenasnce issues than F-16 squadrons call perfect?

>>32356038
>THE POLITICAL OUTCOME IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS.
Is what you said. You said nothing about being related to the war you fought in. Also fall of communism in Asia has something to do with US even if it's not related to Vietnam war.

I'm trying to use this rhetoric to point out that you can't simplify things and use statements like war 101 without being misunderstood. It's a bit subtle kind of ad hominem.

How do you make your opponent agree to fight by conventional rules?

The way they win is by not playing your game.

>>32354179
Resistors are easy its
Black Boys Rape Our Young Girls But Virgins Give Willingly

>>32361737
>How do you make your opponent agree to fight by conventional rules?
Generally because they want the same rules used against them.

>>32361772
yes, but if your opponent is going to rape you using the rules they want to use, then your only answer is to capitulate, suck up the losses, or change the rules.

Asymmetrical warfare goes a long way. Blow up a few shopping malls in your opponents country. You know they won't do the same to you, and even if they do, you don't care because it just makes recruiting easier.

>>32361771
6332 here.
Bad Beer Rots Our Young Guts But Vodka Goes Well.

>>32353131
did you just find out about ww2 or something OP?

>>32353131
You can. Either with a Russia-style asymmetrical counterpart (we're not gonna take the skies, but neither will you), or at a huge cost. But it can be done.

>>32359714
>where it executed its mission sets flawlessly and had less maintenasnce issues than F-16 squadrons call perfect?

I wouldn't necessarily take those stats at face value unless you were actually ON that TDY and personally know it to be so.

As a former maintainer I'll believe maintainers, but not necessarily PR releases. :)

>>32363195
They released exactly which components failed and needed short maintenace times:
> In one incident, an internal battery failed and had to be removed and replaced. During the second event, the plane’s initial navigation system failed, necessitating maintenance.
>Both aircraft were returned to service after undergoing repairs and exhibited no additional issues, he said.

>Col. David Smith, commander of 419th Fighter Wing and currently an F-16 pilot, noted the two F-35 ground aborts are actually an improvement when compared to the failure rates of the F-16 and other 4th-generation aircraft.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/air-force/2016/06/21/f35-software-mountain-home-deployment/86191386/