/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

bumb

>furfaggot plane

Out.

I hope it was one of the new A-10 drone prototypes btw

>>4932719

>Talkin shit on the a-10

Oh you better believe that's a paddlin

A-10's bauce as fuck

So says propaganda network. Is real, trust us.

>The same day, the Pentagon accused Moscow of bombing two Aleppo hospitals, while there were no Russian flights over the city.

Dude, if this is legit, then holy fucking shit. The US military/political entity has incurred so many self inflicted wounds during their Syria tantrum that, at this point, I'm surprised Assad isn't the commandant of the marine corps or some shit.

>>4932748

>>4932742

>American shills

>>4932776

how is this propaganda it is inspiring

>>4932776

>another American shill

>>4932795

>implying the A-10 is not bauce as fuck

hao

>>4932804

>implying he even has any idea what hes talking about

>>4932682

There's some agressive actions going on in Syria these days, so I'm not surprised about anything anymore.

The American's pet Turkroaches are the biggest problem with their army ready to invade Syria right now. Hopefully it's just a bluff.

>>4932795

>>4932802

This is a website for Americans kike.

>>4932851

Americans are kikes, kike. It is a Jewish nation.

>>4932799

>ooh noes, they are blamink innocent Russians of heinous acts

>>4932838

> Hopefully it's just a bluff.

it is if the turks dont want to end up like their turkmen buddies in video related

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=05c_1455176882

>>4932735

What do you mean drone prototypes? Are they really upgrading 30-35 year old proven planes with remote control systems instead of building new ones?

I know killing innocent civilians gets easier as there's more physical and emotional distance between the murdered and murderer but this is getting ridiculous. They're already thousands of feet up in the air, they don't need to be hundreds of kilometers away.

>>4933074

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/darpa-successfully-demos-remote-control.html

DARPA recently demonstrated its Persistent Close Air Support (PCAS) prototype system on an A-10 Thunderbolt II attack aircraft, marking the system’s debut on a U.S. Air Force platform. The tests, which involved 50 successful sorties near Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada, showed that a warfighter serving as a joint terminal attack controller (JTAC) on the ground could, in seamless coordination with a pilot, successfully command an airstrike with as few as three clicks on a tablet.

The PCAS program envisions more precise, prompt and easy air-ground coordination for close air support (CAS)—delivery of airborne munitions to support ground forces—and other missions under stressful operational conditions and in complex environments. It aims to do so through the development of a system that enables the sharing of real-time situational awareness and weapons-systems data, using technologies compatible with almost any aircraft. Among the system’s envisioned benefits is a capacity to use smaller munitions to hit smaller, multiple or moving targets while minimizing the incidence of friendly fire and collateral damage.

>>4933074

> Are they really upgrading 30-35 year old proven planes with remote control systems instead of building new ones

yes, along with F-16s too

not really a bad idea if US datalink systems weren't so fucking slow and laggy but that should improve, the idea could potentially result in a very potent system to use on older mass produced aircraft that are still highly maneuverable and can carry considerable armaments like the Mig-21 and Su-15 for Russia also

>>4933156

JET FUEL CAN'T MELT TITANIUM COCKPIT,

A-10 = 0

SU-25 = 1

>>4933195

It would make fucking aviators even more lazy and homosexual than usual though.

>>4933289

its called the chairforce for a reason

>>4933267

A-10 has a titanium bathtub that the cockpit rests in.

>>4933195

That's the thing, these older planes are designed for having a crew inside them. Wouldn't a newer plane designed with remote control in mind be far more efficient? Both aerodynamically and in weight savings?

I'm not saying this isn't a bad idea for testing purposes or for training. The issue is you have thousands of qualified people beating down their doors to get into these planes and instead they're replacing the pilot seats with remote control, eventually it'll be AI. It can't be good for morale when you're seen as an obsolete replaceable cog in a machine to be phased out.

>>4933346

Su-25 can run on many types of fuel, (which is important when fuel becomes scarce durning wars) And it 5 million cheaper than A-10, so you can get 2 su 25's for 1 A-10

>>4933420

> Wouldn't a newer plane designed with remote control in mind be far more efficient?

sure, which IMO is why its a waste of money and resources to use on newer planes like the F-16 and A-10, but for older aircraft that are still maneuverable and capable of high speeds along with being able to carry large radars like F-4 Phantoms or F-104s would be excellent for this if the US didn't scrap most, Russia and its client states still have tons of older jets in reserve that would work very well though

one main advantage of drones is they can withstand higher G turns than manned aircraft due to human limitations, which is another reason why lower speed aircraft like F-16s and A-10s don't make sense as drones

What's this, more burger vs slavaboo armchair combat?

>>4932682

>RT

>A reliable source

Get out, faggot. They'll literally say whatever Putin tells them to and nothing more.

Whatcha slidin, Ivan?

this is some lazy fucking propaganda

>see goys, russians are bombing islamic hospitals!

Mods requesting Sticky

>>4933767

Too bad the Air Force doesn't want the A-10.

https://pando.com/2014/12/18/the-war-nerd-more-proof-the-us-defense-industry-has-nothing-to-do-with-defending-america/

>>4933767

God that is a sexy looking plane.

>>4933957

>posting the opinions of a marxist

Cool story

The Air Force wanted to retire it because it's old. Old hardware creates logistical problems and all sorts of other issues.

>F-35 is worthless may-may

See, this is how I know this fag is full of shit. Only disinfo shills and armchair morons say that.

The A-10 is awesome.

>>4933999

Chairforce faggot here. Daily reminder that Lockheed Martin spends almost as much money paying little turds like >>4933999 to shill for the trillion-dollar F-35 boondoggle, as jews spend shilling for Israel. You can't read the lowliest blog post about the F-35 without the Lockmart PR fuckers turning up. Daily reminder that the F-35 software and systems will be fully tested and qualified for combat in 2030 according to Lockheed Martin's own schedule = 16 years late. AIR FORCE TIMES says the F-35 is a piece of shit, for christ's sakes.

Here's the truth about the F-35:

THE F-35 IS A LEMON

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

F’d: How the U.S. and Its Allies Got Stuck with the World’s Worst New Warplane

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/fd-how-the-u-s-and-its-allies-got-stuck-with-the-worlds-worst-new-warplane-5c95d45f86a5

The F-35 Fighter Jet Is A Historic $1 Trillion Disaster

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-f-35-is-a-disaster-2014-7

The F-35 Fighter Plane Is Even More of a Mess Than You Thought

http://gizmodo.com/the-f-35-fighter-plane-is-even-more-of-a-mess-than-you-1584580246

Pentagon's vaunted F-35 earns lousy review from test pilot in secret report

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/04/pentagon-vaunted-f-35-earns-lousy-review-from-test-pilot-in-secret-report.html

Leaked: New F-35 fighter jet beaten by F-16 from 1970s

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ed_1435953200

Report: F-35 inferior to older US, foreign fighters

http://www.stripes.com/report-f-35-inferior-to-older-us-foreign-fighters-1.362441

How DOD’s $1.5 Trillion F-35 Broke the Air Force

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-broke-the-air-force.html

Lockheed F-35 Quality Failings Cited by Inspector General

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-09-25/lockheed-f-35-quality-failings-cited-by-inspector-general

Inspector general faults management of F-35 engine program

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/04/28/dod-ig-review-f35-engine-program/26461887/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=

>>4932682

Destroying evidence

>>4932779

>The US military/political entity has incurred so many self inflicted wounds during their Syria tantrum that, at this point, I'm surprised Assad isn't the commandant of the marine corps or some shit.

Assad would probably make a good commandant too, that's the thing.

>>4933420

no crew=no flightsuit systems=less energy=more room for armament

>>4932719

>furfaggot plane

stop making me love them even more.

>>4933156

>Frogfoot

It checks out.

Pepe stomps on ISIS from the skies.

>>4933653

Not exactly.

The problem with drones is that signals can be hacked or jammed.

So all you need to do to ensure victory against drone bombers or fights is carry some equipment that can jam their control signals causing the things to either default to a preplanned flight plan, go into a station keeping/patrol mode to try and reacquire their signal or crash into the ground. No matter which happens they become absurdly easy to deal with all for the cost of temporarily having no comms of your own.

Which could push towards autonomous attack aircraft. But those are expensive and current AI tech too twitchy.

>>4934363

> Lockheed Martin spends almost as much money paying little turds like >>4933999 to shill for the trillion-dollar F-35 boondoggle

He's right. The fucking space shuttle is a better aircraft.

>>4934069

the only thing thats good for is bombing sand nigger terrorists with no anti aircraft missiles

>>4932719

what

>>4934069

And that's because we have no tangible plans to replace it. All of our next-gen bomber shit got scrapped.

>>4934363

>As a chairforce faggot

No, shut up. No one cares what you do, unless you're a fucking general or an aerospace engineer, it's not relevant to this discussion.

>wall of links

>What are politics

Yes, there are issues with it. There were issues with the F-16 when it was initially rolled out. The FBW system sometimes just failed. I'm sure you're aware of this. The F-22 had issues. There are always some snags with new technology.

A lot of the fuss is political and you know better than to just assume that it's shit because some people said so. Do you trust everything you hear on the news?

>Lockheed Martin shills

Why? Is there some way I can convince you to buy an F-35? I didn't realize you could just plop down the cash for it and buy one because some guy on the internet said it wasn't shit, but hey, I guess if that works, I should be taking commission.

>AIR FORCE TIMES

So? It's just a newpaper/website run by Tegna, Inc. Were you under the impression it was somehow the official opinion of the Air Force?

Now, just because I think you're being a faggot doesn't mean I don't agree it's overbudget, late and it has a lot of well publicized engineering hurdles, however, does that mean it's a piece of shit? No, it doesn't. The thing is, you don't shit talk the F-16 and yet that beautiful plane couldn't stop falling out of the sky for no fucking reason for DECADES.

Hating on the Lightning II is just popular right now. It's a meme. Get over it.

>>4935027

The F22 still has issues and they're huge issues.

They still haven't fixed the raptor cough and theres still a serious issue with its breathing equipment as pilots are consistently reporting dizziness and tiredness.

>>4934965

The guy who designed the gunsight or something is a furry artist, /d/ tier stuff.

Go ahead look it up. I dare you.

>>4933420

Installing a remote controller on stockpilled aircraft is probably cheaper than creating new drones of similar performance.

>>4935434

Depends on the aircraft to be fair.

>>4935442

The Iranians are pretty clever overall and their entire military and intelligence agency are absurdly specialised in counter-US activities and strategies.

If someone else picked a fight with them they'd probably be in trouble unless it was a US puppet.

>>4935027

Did not know that Lockheed had invested in saltmines.

> It's a meme.

And by the powers of mememagic it will never manage to lift off the ground. :^)

>thread about Americans being filthy kike goys as they are

>shills flood in and so fucking obviously turn it into a spergout about some irrelevant aiwplanes

>mfw pol these days is full of low-brow shills

On topic:

Shit's going down.

With half a million dead and shitfuck of refugees Russia is trying to wrap up Syria as a win for the red team. Can't wait till EU start to meddle, people'll be screaming for stability in Syria and GTFO of rapeUgees

Americans, doing what they do best, attack civilians and hospitals to hinder the closing of the Syrian pool for Israel and their lackeys. Whoever still claims the US is not a bloodthisrty empire in its death throws is strongly delusional.

Let the 2016 crisis come and throw them down the well of broken empires.

I for one welcome our new Chopstick overlords.

>>4935530

Also, does anyone have a site/gif/webm of border changes in Syria?

(plus that blue vs. red post about the Syrian war)

>>4933767

>>A-10

>>Total of 6 ever shot down in history, unlike the 60+ Su-25s lost

I don't disagree, but is that because the A-10 is superior or is it because the Air Force doesn't fly it anywhere it could be shot down? Maybe the Russians send their planes into hot areas with anti-aircraft more often.

>>God-tier gatling cannon, tears right through russian tanks from above

The A-10 cannon won't penetrate any tank armor newer than a T-55. For newer tanks it has to use the Maverick missile.

>>4933767

A-10 is operated by the U.S.A.F..

Su-25 is operated by every second sandnigger/USSR break-away that needs a token Air Force for real fights instead of playgrounds with AWACS, Air Superiority and SEAD nannies all over.

>>4933156

God memes are fucking everywhere these days

Frogfoot thread now!

>>4935442

Your mistake is assuming they are shit.

They're actually a pretty big regional power, the equivalent of Germany in Europe relative to the ME.

Ruled it all before, dreams of conquering it, has no force projection outside its regions.

Now France, France is a fun place, can project intercontinental power, has a capable military that it can sustain in multiple warzones, has ruled the world.

Still lost to the Brits.

Bump, not enough news about what's going on in the middle east.

>>4933160

>predicted ISIS (GLA)

>predicted American withdrawal from the geopolitical scenery and the fall of Europe to Islam

>predicted Chinese near-world domination before 2040

>predicted drone version of A-10

Was that game a meme?

>>4933653

>one main advantage of drones is they can withstand higher G turns than manned aircraft due to human limitations

Are there currently combat drones that can pull more than 9g?

>>4932682

And yet there are is no proof whatsoever about this.

>>4937041

Indeed. Put if you lurked /pol/ for more than a week you'd know that this claim

>The spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry drew attention to the stunning similarity of the situation with the American airstrike on the Medecins Sans Frontieres hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, and the US bombing of the positions of the Iraqi army in Fallujah.

>“What they do first is make unfounded accusations against us – to deflect blame away from themselves. If it goes on like this, we’re going to make two media briefings: one for ourselves, another for those coalition guys,” Konashenkov said.

has a certain gravity.

>>4937132

What's wrong with B-1B?

Get into the SA putting troops into Syria faggots. >>4936758

This thread is infested with US army kikes.

>>4934581

>>4935442

thats why you use cheap older aircraft that arent a big loss if they get shot down or signal jammed

also another system is to use ground scanning radar and internally stored maps for reference to find location for guidance even with no GPS, F-111s and cruise missiles have used this system successfully for decades

>>4936952

not really any operational combat drones yet but the DARPA Falcon Project is meant to exceed what is capable with human limits in a drone

>>4937132

B1s arent getting replaced http://defensetech.org/2014/02/21/air-force-begins-massive-b-1b-overhaul/

>>4937188

https://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/2-23309#startofcomments

>GP Jane's International Defence Review 7/2007, pg. 15: "IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION By Richard M. Ogorkiewicz Claims by NATO testers in the 1990s that the armour of Soviet Cold War tanks was “effectively impenetrable” have been supported by comments made following similar tests in the US. Speaking at a conference on “The Future of Armoured Warfare” in London on the 30th May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US Army tests involving firing trials on 25 T-72A1 and 12 T-72B1 tanks (each fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour [ERA]) had confirmed NATO tests done on other former Soviet tanks left behind in Germany after the end of the Cold War. The tests showed that the ERA and composite Armour of the T-72s was incredibly resilient to 1980s NATO anti-tank weapons. In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles, anti-tank missiles, and anti-armour rotary cannons.

>When fitted to the T-72A1 and B1 the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU (Depleted Uranium) penetrators of the M829A2 APFSDS (used by the 120 mm guns of the Cold War era US M1 Abrams tanks), which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles. We also tested the 30mm GAU-8 Avenger (the gun of the A-10 Thunderbolt II Strike Plane), the 30mm M320 (the gun of the AH-64 Apache Attack Helicopter) and a range of standard NATO Anti Tank Guided Missiles – all with the same result of no penetration or effective destruction of the test vehicles. The combined protection of the standard armour and the ERA gives the Tanks a level of protection equal to our own.

A lot of export variants are still vulnerable though

>>4937266

>SA putting troops into Syria

They're not going to actually do it and still saying they want the US to invade Syria first

>>4937289

Yeah even if you manage to keep the aircraft aloft courtesy of internal maps and ground radar. It doesn't change the fact that the drone in question is no longer combat capable. Unless its designed to be a completely autonomous platform capable of target recognition in a fight.

>>4932719

>(1)

It looks like the nose is painted to look like an angry pork, which would be in character for a plane called "Warthog."

>>4937323

>It doesn't change the fact that the drone in question is no longer combat capable. Unless its designed to be a completely autonomous platform capable of target recognition

There are other types of remote control systems that are much harder to jam than GPS, also if it was using older converted fighters they already are equipped with identify-friend-foe systems along with datalinks and radar making it relatively trivial to introduce autonomous combat capabilities

>>4935755

>won't penetrate

Got a sauce?

>>4932719

lol I love how all these third world morons misuse memes when they shitpost.

>>4932795

>Pentagon: He did it!

>Kremlin: No he did it!

>>4937508

The problem with the A-10 is its hard for the corps to make a lot of money off it. So they don't like working with it.

But nobody is providing anything comparable and the government refuses to finance a new aircraft for the same role.

>>4937556

>and the government refuses to finance a new aircraft for the same role.

theyre trying as hard as they can to make the F-35 do its role unfortunately

>>4937587

Because it pumps more money into the project and keeps the USAF leadership onboard with the project.

>>4935545

http://syria.liveuamap.com/

This site is updated frequently with current happenings. The bias is obvious enough you should be able to infer the truth.

Remember:

BELIEVE THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE JEWS SAY

>>4935755

wow cool sources anon

pretty sure the A-10 has been in hotter situations than blowing up chechans and georgians and it has a better record as a dedicated ground attack aircraft

>muh frogfoot stronk

>>4937726

Well. I wouldn't want to try and use A-10s in a modern warzone. They'd be something you only use for ground support in areas you have air dominance in.

While they're more than capable of chewing up and surviving any cold war era weapons and tech. Its debatable if they could manage against modern gear. Their primary weapon for instance would definitely fail against modern MBTs. And its dubious if they'd survive modern AA missiles.

>>4932795

Jealous? Yeh, you're jealous.

>>4937770

That's the rub. NO ONE I know thinks or proposes that an A-10 is going to go into any AOR where a helicopter can't.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on MBT's. JDAMS solved that problem some time ago. As far as AA goes, well, don't know what new anti-AA tech there is, but that has been an ongoing cat and mouse game since Vietnam and will never stop evolving. If it's speed they need then send in the B1B.

It is all you need when you have air superiority and need less than an F16 and more than an Apache.

It's a niche, but it's an affordable, economical and RELIABLE niche

Blew up another field hospital. I guess they thought that the Syrian Army had taken Aleppo and wanted to kill some soldiers.

>>4934582

>He's right. The fucking space shuttle is a better aircraft.

The idiots put the bomb bay on the TOP though.

>>4938121

It's only affordable because the fleet exists.

Scrapping and replacing or adding their capability to something else is more expensive than simply maintaining the old fleet for this niche.

Eventually the decision will have to be made on what to do after the A-10s are no longer viable either because the airframes have degraded due to age or the manufacturer cuts off all design authority support.

Also on the subject of JDAMs. Wasn't the whole point of the A-10 that its main gun was sufficient to tear up most tanks of its day? Making it a cheap platform for anti-tank operations?

>>4938184

The A-10 needs a dedicated replacement, the F-35 isn't that.

The Su-25 should be the guideline, its faster, more maneuverable, has higher operating range and altitude, and is equally capable.

We should copy Russia's design its darn near perfect.

>>4937289

thanks for the source anon.

I still see b1s on rare occasions, but I thought they were dead. I see way more b2s, and supposedly we only have 20 of them

>>4938232

Yanks won't do that.

Not only because its Russian but also because the USA and Russia have very different design philosophies when it comes to aircraft.

The USA favours technical solutions while the Russians prefer mechanical ones.

Hence why the Russians were slow to adopt fly by wire and why their aircraft are usually inherently stable in flight.

>>4938232

>The A-10 needs a dedicated replacement, the F-35 isn't that.

That's the thing, we DON'T need a dedicated replacement for the next 20 years for the A-10.

F35 was good in THEORY, but the application and process needs to be completely revamped - or we will never get a decent, operational, superior aircraft in the US again.

>>4938184

>Also on the subject of JDAMs. Wasn't the whole point of the A-10 that its main gun was sufficient to tear up most tanks of its day? Making it a cheap platform for anti-tank operations?

It evolved, and had the capability for the upgraded munitions/technology. The BBRRRRRRTTTT gun is still effective and blows shit up just fine. The Depleted uranium pollution from the 30mm shells was actually a pretty big issue after Allied Force, and the UN and NATO are still butt-hurt about, so the JDAMS solve that dilemma.

>>4938503

Well the biggest problem with the A-10 is it has been out of production and eventually the airframes will no longer become usable, they all have a lifespan and such a plane endures far more stress than say a B-52.

We will be rapidly running out of usable A-10s with no real replacement in development.

The F-35 has 200 rounds of puny 25mm ammunition, its not a tankbuster, its not an anything-buster.

A replacement should be quite simple to design and build unless Lockheed-Martin gets the contract and creates another godawful mess like the F-35 and F-22.

>>4938232

Why does a ground attack plane need to be any of that? Does it do its job well? Are they surviving? Do they not cost 6 trillion dollars to build?

>>4933767

>tears right through russian tanks from above

This was only true for the T-55, since the T-62 it can't pen their armor

>>4938680

>Sadly we don't have any more and they were retired just as they were becoming very cost effective but F-111s would be fucking perfect for that role, much cheaper to operate than either the B-1 or F-35 and carries a much higher payload than the F-35

Nigger are you reading this thread or cherrypicking. I just learned this today too, thanks to links anon

>>4937289

>B1s arent getting replaced http://defensetech.org/2014/02/21/air-force-begins-massive-b-1b-overhaul/

They made the right choice imo.

>>4938568

>A replacement should be quite simple to design and build

Do you want another harrier? Because that is how you get another harrier

>>4938880

>>4938880

>Do you want another harrier? Because that is how you get another harrier

Kek.

Anyone know if we've sold off any A-10's to other countries? There was a bunch of talk about that not too long ago.

>>4938880

>Do you want another harrier? Because that is how you get another harrier

We have a new harrier, the F-35 piece of shit harrier.

>>4939303

>Anyone know if we've sold off any A-10's to other countries? There was a bunch of talk about that not too long ago.

Funny thing the A-10, the USAF hates it but we have never sold it to any other nation, period. Apparently its just too good a weapon to export for fear it may be used against us one day.

>>4933160

All well and good until the Russians turn on the jammers. Remember when they completely shut down a us destroyer and simulated bombing runs on it. Yeah all your tech don't mean shit.

>>4939853

That is an issue, remember how useful an iPhone is when you turn off the power.

Thats basically the F-35 when it gets jammed, a flying iPhone with the battery turned off.

Man the US is barely even pretending to be the good guys anymore. I would ask how the news is going to spin this, but who am I kidding, they just won't even cover it.

>>4939342

Not to worry!

Norway has to cut its military spendings, so we have to take away the glocks and shit from our soldiers to buy those darn F-35's.

:^^^^^^^)

Our oil is your money,.

>>4939853

That's nice, the A-10 is designed with triple-redundant MECHANICAL flight systems and can take 30mm HE rounds to the cockpit indefinitely.

During the first gulf war one of these flying tanks took 2 direct sam hits and made it home with no injuries. It was repaired and back in the air within 2 weeks.

>>4937386

>>won't penetrate

>Got a sauce?

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a522397.pdf

1979 report of the GAU-8 Avenger gun (A-10 gun) used against 10 M47 tanks in a test. Results: 3 tanks destroyed and 4 tanks immobilized. The M47 tank is the closest thing we have to the T-55 per the report. Armor has advanced quite a bit since the 1970s.

http://www.hill.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5741

During tests conducted at Nellis AFB, Nevada, the GAU-8/A proved to be able to destroy medium-sized tanks.

QED it cannot destroy large main battle tanks or else it would have said "destroy large-sized tanks."

>>4940130

From the report:

>Armor Piercing Incendiary

In other words, not modern solid DU rounds.

Old data is old.

>>4940130

oh.. and

>low angle

proper attack from the air would be high angle plunging fire.

>>4934581

>The problem with drones is that signals can be hacked or jammed.

>doesn't know about focused, point to point comm links

>doesn't know that it's feasible to develop and field this tech

>>4940440

It's feasible to field it in a controlled environment.

>>4940183

I downloaded and am reading the report looking exactly for the type of rounds.

Just found out the article you are referencing is a forgery, a fake. AKA Russian propaganda.

>>4937289

http://www.realitymod.com/forum/f22-military-technology/34476-era-stoping-apfsds-rounds-3.html

I have seen what DU shells do to metal, reinforced or not. 10-20-50-100 30mm shells will destroy a tank, no matter what you put on it, and ERA is not thick on top of the tank, where aircraft shoot at.

Disappointed in you anon, unless you are Russian shill.

>>4940440

>>The problem with drones is that signals can be hacked or jammed.

Reminder that USA drones are built by lowest bidder. The Iranians were able to steal one of our drones because the security between the drone and the transmitter was no better than that of a home baby monitor.

>>4940476

TOPKEK

We have all the necessary technology to make it possible.

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-ultra-high-camera-ball-tracker-japan.html

http://www.lightpointe.com/building-to-building-connectivity-1.html

Mount it to a blimp several miles outside of the conflict zone, and you have total areal coverage.

Point to point between a ground station and the blimp would be <10ms delay. From the blimp to the unmanned vehicle would be at most another 10ms.

For better coverage, a focused ULF signal could be used.

>>4940545

The drones aren't built by the lowest bidder, they're built by people that pay politicians, and are "friends" of the ruling class.

>>4940538

>unsubstantiated claims on a gaming forum thats arguing about 120MM tank ammo proves claims about 30MM GAU-8 ammo

weak bait

also theres a PDF of the whole magazine with the article in one of the /k/ doukument torrents

>>4940201

>proper attack from the air would be high angle plunging fire.

Which exposes the A-10 to extensive AA fire per the report.

http://archive.is/XX1fq

Quoting an A-10 pilot: “Another consideration is that the T-62 is an older tank, more along the line of Vietnam War era. In the ’80s, we were faced with more modern tanks such as the T-72, with even better armor capability.”

For these tanks—and especially when defended by Soviet anti-air defenses—the A-10 pilots trained to rely on their Maverick precision-guided missiles.

>>4939936

This is just finger pointing. There's no actual data of any of this shit. And why would them bomb hospitals especially after what happened recently

>>4932856

Continue being a faggot, krembot

>>4940699

yeah, pdf's can't be tampered with, like Russian ERA.

http://www.matrixgames.com/Forums/printable.asp?m=3445200&mpage=2

>>4940699

weak bait? Are you a Ruskie or disinformation?

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14200&&p=535280&page=97#entry535280

>>4941167

>>4941245

oh look, even more unsubstantiated claims that are entirely about other tanks vs ERA and mention absolutely nothing to prove your claim about GAU-8 performance

also they both come to the conclusion that the article is real but the date and authors are incorrectly listed, top kek

>>4940205

>Why throw it away when you can contaminate your enemy and make his babies all deformed like we did in Iraq?

How would you tell with Iraqi arabs? Do you have any idea how inbred those guys are?

>>4941300

Nope, not even close. Now I know you are a disinfo fag.

"I found my hard copy of the article written by Richard Ogorkiewicz for IDR July 1997. In essence the first two paragraphs of the material published on the Sino-defence site are from the article, the remainder is not. Funnily enough, I attended the SMi Armour/Anti-Armour conference in 1997 where Leyland Ness gave his presentation. That's why it sounded so familiar. His information where treated with a mixture of scepticism and concern. Richard Ogorkiewicz treated Mr Ness's information with respect, as it matched material originally released at an earlier syposium at the Royal Military College at Shrivenham by Martin Held, the leading light behind ERA."