I still find it hard to believe that we would drop the A-10 for any period of time even if it became cost-prohibitive. We just love our glorious metal bird.
@@Gilhelmi Erm, how about no? A-10 is a known maintenance hog, and costs more per air hour to operate than platforms such as the F-16. The majority of its support is done using missiles rather than its gun, which has accuracy issues and cannot be used if the enemy is too close to your own troops. USAF Tests highlighted the accuracy issues, and its one they have not been able to resolve. Those maintenance issues only increase over time, as the A-10 is an old airframe. As air frames age they require more and more maintenance to keep them airworthy. Worse, the A-10 has killed more US and allied troops in blue on blue incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan than any other CAS platform in inventory. This is DESPITE the A-10 flying fewer CAS missions than F-16's over the same period. The better targeting systems in the recent upgrades help but the thing is notorious in non US militaries, most of whom would prefer literally ANYTHING supporting them over an A-10. And I mean literally anything. That aircraft is not as universally loved as people like you seem to think it is amongst the ground pounders, including US Army and Marines. In fact many soldiers outside the US fucking HATE the thing. Its killed enough of their comrades in blue on blues for that reputation to stick, and stick hard. The only advantage the A-10 has over the F-16 in a CAS role is its better loiter time. F-16 is faster, so can get to troops who need the support quicker. Its targeting systems are better. As most CAS missions these days are missile drops the F-16 actually has a BETTER combat load than the A-10, and is cleared for more munitions than the A-10 giving it better flexibility.
As amazing an aircraft is the a-10 is. It's probably going to be replaced by an aircraft known as the air-warden, It's an up armored crop duster Tricked out with all the surveillance equipment you could want.
There is only enough dakka when the entire universe is destroyed in a single shot all at once then in the explosion that comes after causes another Big Bang that will reignite the universe
What he said about causing harm over directly killing is very true. And that makes me incredibly sad that the most effective way to fight most battles is by making people both suffer, and watch.
@@AgroSquerril yeah that's faster than I remember. Well we don't expect technology to stay stagnant anyway so I guess I should have expected that it advanced that far
Only experimental systems have been made from what I have read. Railguns have been tested up to Mach 8, but have been problematic and the last that I heard have been mostly abandoned by the NAVY. They have been making great strides in post-fire-boot system. Basically artillery fired rounds that have rockets built-in that accelerate them after leaving the barrel. The big advantage is that they can be used in current guns, you don't need to redesign half the ship just to support the power needs of a railgun. If we ever get high temperature superconductors piratical, then railguns might be on the table again.
@@waynecampeau4566 Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) shells in modern tanks (Abrams, Leopard II, etc) operate in the 1,800 m/s range for muzzle velocity. That equates to Mach 5.3 at sea level under standard conditions.
Hi All, i will be doing another Live Author Q&A stream next Saturday the 21st of September @ 16:00 UCT with Regal Legal Eagle from HFY , I hope everyone will join us. Leave any questions you may have here and i will try and get them answered.
If this is the example of their weaponry, maybe they should consider a genetic weapon that can be educated, evolve, breed with other species, etc., How about ORC 1.0 ;)
If brute force doesn't work, you aren't using enough
I still find it hard to believe that we would drop the A-10 for any period of time even if it became cost-prohibitive. We just love our glorious metal bird.
Honestly, the A-10 is an amazing piece of human engineering.
It is cheaper and more cost effective than most other attack planes.
@@Gilhelmi Erm, how about no? A-10 is a known maintenance hog, and costs more per air hour to operate than platforms such as the F-16. The majority of its support is done using missiles rather than its gun, which has accuracy issues and cannot be used if the enemy is too close to your own troops. USAF Tests highlighted the accuracy issues, and its one they have not been able to resolve.
Those maintenance issues only increase over time, as the A-10 is an old airframe. As air frames age they require more and more maintenance to keep them airworthy.
Worse, the A-10 has killed more US and allied troops in blue on blue incidents in Iraq and Afghanistan than any other CAS platform in inventory. This is DESPITE the A-10 flying fewer CAS missions than F-16's over the same period. The better targeting systems in the recent upgrades help but the thing is notorious in non US militaries, most of whom would prefer literally ANYTHING supporting them over an A-10. And I mean literally anything.
That aircraft is not as universally loved as people like you seem to think it is amongst the ground pounders, including US Army and Marines. In fact many soldiers outside the US fucking HATE the thing. Its killed enough of their comrades in blue on blues for that reputation to stick, and stick hard.
The only advantage the A-10 has over the F-16 in a CAS role is its better loiter time. F-16 is faster, so can get to troops who need the support quicker. Its targeting systems are better. As most CAS missions these days are missile drops the F-16 actually has a BETTER combat load than the A-10, and is cleared for more munitions than the A-10 giving it better flexibility.
As amazing an aircraft is the a-10 is.
It's probably going to be replaced by an aircraft known as the air-warden, It's an up armored crop duster Tricked out with all the surveillance equipment you could want.
The Blue on Blue bird is being canned. So this didn't age terribly well.
@@SilverCrescent-lo6qw To be honest, I knew it was expensive to keep maintained but I didn't know about the reputation of blue on blue.
There is only enough dakka when the entire universe is destroyed in a single shot all at once then in the explosion that comes after causes another Big Bang that will reignite the universe
ITZ A KRUMPIN' SHAME INNIT?
If your weapons dont have enough Dakka, you need to get better engineers.
What he said about causing harm over directly killing is very true. And that makes me incredibly sad that the most effective way to fight most battles is by making people both suffer, and watch.
The railgun speed reminds me of project Thor. Estimated impact speeds of Mach 8.8.
As a wise man once said “If it’s worth doing it’s worth overdoing”
very true
You don’t understand, we made a bomb so big we had to make it weaker so it didn’t crack the crust.
Not true. The Tsar bomb's yield was reduced to keep from destroying the bomber that dropped it.
There is never too much Firepower. Also since when do we have projectiles that go over Mach 4?
don't the current USA military experimental rail guns fire at mach 6 or something?
@@AgroSquerril yeah that's faster than I remember. Well we don't expect technology to stay stagnant anyway so I guess I should have expected that it advanced that far
Only experimental systems have been made from what I have read. Railguns have been tested up to Mach 8, but have been problematic and the last that I heard have been mostly abandoned by the NAVY. They have been making great strides in post-fire-boot system. Basically artillery fired rounds that have rockets built-in that accelerate them after leaving the barrel. The big advantage is that they can be used in current guns, you don't need to redesign half the ship just to support the power needs of a railgun. If we ever get high temperature superconductors piratical, then railguns might be on the table again.
About the 1930s.
@@waynecampeau4566 Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot (APFSDS) shells in modern tanks (Abrams, Leopard II, etc) operate in the 1,800 m/s range for muzzle velocity. That equates to Mach 5.3 at sea level under standard conditions.
Hi All, i will be doing another Live Author Q&A stream next Saturday the 21st of September @ 16:00 UCT with Regal Legal Eagle from HFY , I hope everyone will join us. Leave any questions you may have here and i will try and get them answered.
More dakka .
MOOOORRREEE DAKKA BOIS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DAKKA!DAKKA!MORE DAKKA!NEVER ENOUGH DAKKA!
Oiz lav gettan stuk en
A hail the Brrrrrt!
Cheeky little not quite 4th wall break there.
Love your work and your voice ❤
Never enough dakka
true
Im sad this doesn't have a follow-up of the alien reacting to earth tech
For the Algorithm, For the Author(s), For the Disembodied Voice!
For the algorithm
For the algorithm
For the algorithm
To please the algorithm is all
If this is the example of their weaponry, maybe they should consider a genetic weapon that can be educated, evolve, breed with other species, etc., How about ORC 1.0 ;)
F.T.A !
For the algorithm
Dang, dis one old
42nd, 18 December 2023
For the Algorithm, For the Author(s), For the Disembodied Voice!