God damn America is bad ass

god damn America is bad ass
>pic releated

You act like VTOL is a new thing

Too bad it kills runways

Usa stole the vertical landing concept from the russians. True fact.

funny you picked the Failure-35

its a brand new plane. its bound to have a couple bugs that have to be worked out

When I see this plane I immediately think of True Lies.

>a couple

It was a Harrier in True Lies. F+35 was in Die Hard 4

this aeroplane lose in simulacros of wars.

Perhaps, but what concepts did Russia not steal from the US...

also... captcha kek

Yeah the f35 is cool and what not, but can it BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTT like the A-10?

Didn't think so.

we all love the A-10 but outside CAS roles its garbage

Well of course, because it was designed and built for the sole purpose of CAS...

That plane is old as fuck you reddit hole diver

what are you getting at? the F-35 is a multirole plane and only lacks a gau-8 to be just as effective as the A-10
of course that wont happen

Really? I get that , I really do.

When I see this plane all I can think is that America and to some extent the rest of the countries buying it are throwing all the eggs in one basket.

All the different planes that use to specialize in doing different jobs traded in for this damn maintenance nightmare.

Yet the plane is still being used to this day, and many love it still.
So is the browning M2 "ma deuce" that started in 1933, yet the army still uses it to this very day, go crawl back to that rock you just came out of.

They need to go ahead and replace the pilot, or at least make it remotely manned. That way they can maneuver without worrying about passing out. Thrust-vectoring is a game-changer.

harrier iz still better.

Harrier is garbage.

isn't it highly unstable to fly without any form of computerized flight assistance?

There's a huge difference between planes and guns in level of technology required to be useful. We don't use 100 year old planes, and 40 years is old for a plane of the world's sole superpower. It would be useless in a war against a major power.

Yes, at low speeds, but what is your point? Remote pilots can still have fly-by-wire.

the harrier was bad ass considering the time and tech limitations. f35 is overpriced american garbage

Old ? Yes..
Can any other plane do its job at its cost of operations? No.
Can any other plane take the damage it can and keep operating? No.

Old? Fuck you, you millennial twat.

What is the B-52?

Pretty sure this was a British invention.

Then tell me, why is the US still using 30-40 year old planes then, for when there is much better alternatives out there today.

This is mediocre bait. It's not even worthy of a pic.

This guy knows.

That moment when a 40 million dollar hoverjunk gets taken out by one rogue concrete brick.

Better go back to school mate.

the "old" planes is often modernized and comes with a suitable set of bells and whistles
>what is retro-fitting

You mean the British, VTOL has been in operation for many decades... the Harrier is that old.

>Retro-fitting

Exactly. Something millenialfags can't seem to understand even after a dictionary gets thrown at them.

In the process of replacement because it's old as dick.

They're all being replaced or upgraded to the point of being a whole new plane.

because sometimes all you need is an engine and a set of wings to launch the missles from.
outside of total war the munitions alone do everything that is needed.

>engines
>set of wings
>require a pilot? or a radio signal?

why not a drone? .. oh wait, surgical tactical strikes. nevermind.

I agree, OP.

Soviets designed and tested this in the 80's

Americans made it stealth and $120,000,000 each in 2010.

The British began flying Harrier VTOL planes in the 60's. It's old news people.

> millenialfags
could you please not? no need to start that shit here

of course retro-fitting only goes that far, sure you can give the plane new avionics and engines but the hard part is how to handle munitions
for instance the A-10 didt have the lightning targeting pod 2 to begin with but was added later as a part of its upgrade to the B model or C
the plane remains largely the same however its often problematic to get new parts for it not to mention make it compatible with more modern munitions as they are developed
in fact the A-10´s have already been stopped production of and is expected out of service around 2025 but thats of course just numbers which are projected

nice get, except the Harrier was shit.

No. Lots of jets are VTOL. The F35 is the first to go supersonic.

damn son, quintget.

...

The harrier was only garbage when put into the hands of Ameritards, they kept crashing them because they were shit pilots

I mean the back exaust concept. Russia develop this technique 30 years ago but the plane was unstable and useless. Good try USA lol. 1 trillion dollar in the trash.

...

Either you're also a milennial and you're too stupid to realize it, or you're way too old for Sup Forums. Either way it's not looking good for you.

...

inb4 china attempts to go at VTOL using stolen/copied ideas from major air force powers.

The harrier was awesome, and still is.

The British air force were flying VTOL jet planes in the 50's.

I am not American, but Scottish. Harrier was flying around since the early 60s.

Waste of money.

And now They're buying shit USA made vtol planes. Uk should just redevelop the harrier whitch was realiabe and cost effective.

>a couple bugs
Yeah just a few multiple billion dollar, recurring 'bugs'

>brand new
>10 years old

Pick one.

>decades' old design still better than competitors
Oh sorry US this user says you guys can't use your older stuff lock it all away

Besides, what good does hovering in mid-flight when you're getting shot at, and it doesn't take much to screw up flight controls after taking little bit of damage.

The A-10 is not better at CAS than the Lightning II, you just fetishize the gun.

All planes that old are being replaced because they're fucking 40 years old.

Oh my god dude. The hovering and vertical take off aspect is to use smaller carriers, not to hover as a combat maneuver.

>Has not heard of retro-fitting before

So whats the point of an attack helicopter?

bait question.

That doesn't work for the A-10 because the airframe itself is the problem. It's slow and old. Updating an F-18 makes sense because it's still a fast and capable airframe, not with that flying tank which can be outmatched by JDAMs and mavericks on multirole fighters.

So it can take off and land without a runway you mong. VTOL isn't used like in the movies. It's not for operating as an Apache attack helicopter.

ITT: user suddenly becomes an expert on military aircraft

kek

I've literally been researching them since I was a toddler.

The only reason why the Harrier is till used by the USMC is because there haven't been any better options. They'll be replaced with F-35's as fast as possible.

The UK dumped harriers years ago because they're god awful aircraft.

We all have. what makes you special in particular?

doesn't matter what the topic is, faggots on Sup Forums think they know everything about everything, this board is cancer reddit-tier trash

It can funtion like an attack helicopter. Weapons on both is almost identicle but harrier can carry missile.

Well I'm not the only one agreeing with me in this thread. The guys claiming that the A-10 isn't outdated in the modern geopolitical environment is objectively wrong. That is a wrong opinion to have.

From the British, retard.

Sorry that you can't handle being wrong.

100x this, you could post about anything and of course theres a fucking expert on Sup Forums, shits laughable

wrong? dumbass i never even had an opinion in this thread

Your bar for being an expert is pretty fucking low chief. Do you need to be a doctor to know that drinking beer instead of water every day is a bad idea? No. You don't need to be an expert to know that the A-10 is old as fuck and would be swatted by modern anti-air systems.

They weren't dropped completely, and not for being awful, just hard to maintain now as they are old craft.

Just like the F-14a, or by your logic because they were awful aircraft right?

No, it can't. The harrier hovers in order to land. There is a very duration in which it can hover, limited by how much water it can carry, and a pretty low weight in which it can over at all.

It doesn't hover in mid flight outside of airshows. In combat it flys around like a relatively slow jet and takes off of either a normal runway or a ski-jump equipped aircraft carrier. .

lol my point is you neckbeard faggots on Sup Forums come off pretentious as fuck when in reality you have shit tier education and are more often than not losers

hurr durr i have a phd in aircraft science cuz i use google hurr durr

wow, OP. for a first time you are right.
good concept but bad execution.
too expensive. the usa companies started to be greedy around the creation on this plane.

No, the harrier is shit. Always was.

As is the 35.

like yourself?

Pretentious requires that your confidence outmatches your actual knowledge. I do have a degree, I'm not a loser, I just happen to know some basic shit about fighter and attack jets, war and geopolitics.

Once again this is basic shit that you don't need a Ph.D for.

yea you got me

Holy shit, yes, the tomcat was an awful aircraft. It was impossible to keep flying, they fell out of the sky till the engines were entirely replaced, they cost a fortune to upgrade to use the AIM-120C, they took up a ton of deck space and didn't do anything the F-18 was already doing better by the time they were replaced.

People develop a fetish for aircraft because they look cool, not because they're functional practical platforms to conduct war fare with.

America is FATASS

took you like 14 minutes to post that because you were double checking your punctuation, you remind me of those douches in the gym who wear wife beaters and walk around flexing, shut up faggit

MY FUCKING DAD WORKS FOR Sup Forums YOU WANNA FUCKING PISS ME OFF ILL HAVE YOU FUCKING ERASED BUCKO

Literally responded less than 2 minutes after both comments. You come off as unintelligent.

yea I'm sure you could make that assumption from a few posts on a fagget tier board on Sup Forums, you're pretentious as fuck m9

>shit education

thats because government frowns upon the ability for people have critical thought , ability to be well informed, the ability to catch the bullshit being spread around daily. and as an end result , you get stupid people

>say stupid shit
>is offended that people assume he's stupid

Lol

Can any of you explain why the concept of understanding that a 45 year old niche aircraft has aged to the point of replacement requires that someone have a shit education? I'd love to hear the logic.

what are you trying to show in that screencap? a big drink?

this is Sup Forums bait. really really old Sup Forums bait.