F-35B test aircraft BF-02 accomplishes its first vertical landing

Absolutly correct, remember when we didnt need guns on fighter planes anymore AIMs would be all we need, ooops. The A10 comes in after the Stealth jets disable the radar air defenses and cleans up while giving low and slow support to ground troops. As in our current battles its boots on the ground that call in air strikes that take and keep the field, unless you give it away politically, which is another discussion. Who knows the next world war may be fought with sticks and stones, after we blow each other away.

 

Reminds me of the people who thought that dogfighting was a thing of the past and that agility was no longer needed. Ha!

 

Jim- McNamara wanted the F-111 to be the AF and Navy's new fighter. Great interdictor, lousy air to air platform.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

That's one COOL plane lol


For some reason or other it feels more like... "Now that's how it should be done"... than the Harrier did?

 

Yeah, but we shall see how well the A10 does against a dense AAA network like the North Korean. Also, NK is probably one of the last remaining large conventional armies.

 

Nikolai- The A-10 has been upgraded with a new glass cockpit and PGM capability, including new, long range versions of the Maverick which make it much more capable and survivable.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

It's a good machine, but new smart munitions will make it obsolete pretty soon.

 

I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. What "new" "smart munitions" (and I've never heard 'smart munitions' used outside of the context of guided, unpowered weapons which would eliminate pretty much anything used to shoot down aircraft with the exception of maybe some fancy AAA shells) are going to magically make the A-10 obsolete, and how will the Taliban and al Qaeda get these? The Russians have been selling MANPADS by the truck load to our enemies for years that could shoot down A-10s, and yet somehow they are still a non-issue in our current conflicts. I wonder how that's suddenly going to change.

 

Correct. He is a troll. Have a look at his other posts.


Don't feed him. He will go away if we are lucky.

 

we shared a hanger with a USMC harrier squadron in Okinawa...I rarely saw a vertical takeoff or landing as they would blow holes in the pavement..mostly rolling starts and landings..that being said, the landing gear would get punched frequently due to hard landings, and they were a maint nightmare to fix, and always broken down..you had to break the plane in half to service..i felt sorry for the guys working on them..I dont see this plane being much better, unless there is a specific mission it is needed for, or foreign military sales. I worked depot main A-10's for years...good airplane, even with the LASTE problems they had (low altitude safety and targeting enhancement)

 

I recently read an excellent book on written by a USMC Harrier pilot who flew in Afghanistan. Their unit was called into Bagram because at the onset of the war, the Harriers were one of the only jets that could land on that messed up runway...and since you brought it up, now that I think about it, vertical landings were never mentioned in the book but he did mention normal landings and how hairy they were. The jet is/was dangerous to fly, and a disproportionate amount of pilots have lost their lives doing so.

 

Wow! This thing looks like it is extremely complex and heavy. I assume the learning curve will continue to be steep with this machine?

 

I doubt it....modern flight control software should make this thing a piece of cake to fly compared to the harrier.

 

Vertical landings are a lot like flying formation or hovering a helicopter. Takes a lot of practice to do well.

Taz
Terry Phillips