|
I was responding to "MANPADS",
etc. Such a device will need
detectors of some kind, e.g.,
heat, radar, and the usual approaches
to stealth should help. For close air support, maybe the
US wants to use fast, stealth
aircraft firing missiles to spots
specified with laser designators,
GPS, etc. As I recall, at times the USAF
claimed that to kill tanks
an F-16 with a missile was better
than the A-10: Sure, the gun
on the A-10 is amazing, but the
A-10 flies low and slow and
should be vulnerable to, say,
MANPADS. The F-16 flies
higher and faster, fires a
missile, and then is out'a there. Maybe the USAF wants the F-35 to
be better, still: Use stealth. Sure, maybe soon the USAF will want
its missiles to kill tanks, etc.
fired from drones, maybe even
stealth drones. |
>For close air support, maybe the US wants to use fast, stealth aircraft firing missiles to spots specified with laser designators, GPS, etc.
Yeah, the Air Force always says that, and the ground troops always demand A-10's Apaches, etc.
>As I recall, at times the USAF claimed that to kill tanks an F-16 with a missile was better than the A-10: Sure, the gun on the A-10 is amazing, but the A-10 flies low and slow and should be vulnerable to, say, MANPADS. The F-16 flies higher and faster, fires a missile, and then is out'a there.
The Air Force always claims that they have a good reason to get rid of the A-10.
The fart-gun while awesome, isn't the real reason troops love it so much. The ability to loiter on station for a long time and keep enemy forces down in defensive mode is. Neither fast-movers, nor helicopters can loiter as long.
>Maybe the USAF wants the F-35 to be better, still: Use stealth.
Stealth isn't a panacea, it's a buff against the enemy's radar. And, yeah, drones/unmanned are the future.