Planes

Transportation for Land, Sea, and Air

Re: Planes

Postby SoB » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:29 pm

UnderDude wrote:And what SA equipment do we use?
You left out the M1A2 Abrams, M136 Gatling Gun, F16, F/A18, Super Cobra, Apache......

MRAPs, M32 grenade luanchers, Husky, some EW stuff and a few other smaller sytems or componants.

Yes there are a host of other good wepaons the US makes. Like the C130, AC130,C17, clamore I did say extra extra since it is a long list.


Personaly I don't like the M1A1 I prever the new lepards. Diessiel engien and got a better gun. But the M1 is still part of the western trinty of chalnger 2, lepard and of cours M1. Where no 3 is a clear winer at it comes down to persnal choice.
User avatar
SoB
Team Exodus
Team Exodus
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:13 pm

Re: Planes

Postby CavWarrior » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:47 pm

SoB wrote:The V22 is not the worst thing america has build or tried to build. It still loads better than the GCV, stryker MGS, F35, LCS, zumwalt Growler extra extra extra.

For a zpoc air craft though a lot of US milltary vechiels are a bad idea. The maintance requiments are just to high.

For a chopper the alouet 3 is a good choice or a gazel. Larger I would look at a puma or super puma(couger) another air craft is a cesna 200 serries they all prety good bush air craft.


The russian MI17 is another opstion or if you want a flying house MI26


The Ground Combat Vehicle is just a concept. It is far from going into production and may never get off the drawing board. So saying something is "bad" when it hasn't even been fully built or tested is compete non-sense. The Stryker is a damned fine vehicle. It's been used extensively and successfully in combat with the MGS being a good close support weapon system. The F-35 has had cost overruns, but that doesn't make it a bad aircraft. same with the Growler.

As for helicopters. I wouldn't want to use one, regardless of make, in a PAW. Too much maintenance to make it worthwhile.

Tanks? Both the M1A1 and the Leopard 2 use the same gun, A Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore.
User avatar
CavWarrior
Team Exodus
Team Exodus
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:35 pm
Location: Indiana

Re: Planes

Postby SoB » Mon Nov 25, 2013 11:23 pm

CavWarrior wrote:
SoB wrote:The V22 is not the worst thing america has build or tried to build. It still loads better than the GCV, stryker MGS, F35, LCS, zumwalt Growler extra extra extra.

For a zpoc air craft though a lot of US milltary vechiels are a bad idea. The maintance requiments are just to high.

For a chopper the alouet 3 is a good choice or a gazel. Larger I would look at a puma or super puma(couger) another air craft is a cesna 200 serries they all prety good bush air craft.


The russian MI17 is another opstion or if you want a flying house MI26


The Ground Combat Vehicle is just a concept. It is far from going into production and may never get off the drawing board. So saying something is "bad" when it hasn't even been fully built or tested is compete non-sense. The Stryker is a damned fine vehicle. It's been used extensively and successfully in combat with the MGS being a good close support weapon system. The F-35 has had cost overruns, but that doesn't make it a bad aircraft. same with the Growler.

As for helicopters. I wouldn't want to use one, regardless of make, in a PAW. Too much maintenance to make it worthwhile.

Tanks? Both the M1A1 and the Leopard 2 use the same gun, A Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore.


And the concept is bad. In genrail the stryker has it's issues(like failing to meet it's orgnail goals and high price tag) but the MGS is just bad. The auto loader is prone to jaming, a jam can not be cleard from insided, it carries far less rounds than other FSV. The F35 is not bad you right but it has failed in it's purpos it was ment to be a cheaper F22 but now will cost more tham the F22. Is the F35 5 times better than a jas39 because it 5 times has expensive, will cost more to run to boot. When the growler was tested there was a cheaper opstion, that was less prone to roll, does not need a winch to enter a V22, carried the morta andd ammo unlike the growler that needs a trailer for each thus meaning 2 vechiles are now needed. A lot of times the resoane US things are bad is due to price. If you factor in RnD one zumwalt costs more than 7 billion USD that is more that the SANDF defence budget.



They not restrected to runway's and I memstioned the maintance light opstions.(Ok the MI26 is there because it is just big)

M1 uses the L44 lepaord uses L55. L55 is just a bet gun.
User avatar
SoB
Team Exodus
Team Exodus
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:13 pm

Re: Planes

Postby CavWarrior » Tue Nov 26, 2013 12:50 am

In your opinion the concept is bad I prefer to listen to the guys who actually use the equipment. The Stryker MGS is a fine. battle tested platform. Prone to jamming? Tell that to the guys in the field who've used it. There's the difference between people who read stuff and people with experience. It's swift, silent, and lethal. If you want to keep going back to initial issue problems to make your argument, you'll have to go elsewhere. The F-35 was meant to be a multi-roll fighter/attack aircraft to take the place of several aging aircraft in the inventory now. It was never meant to be a cheaper F-22. That's like saying the Harrier was meant to be a cheaper F/A-18.As for the L44/L55, the L55 is a bit longer. It's still the same gun and the new M256E1 makes up for any difference in length.
User avatar
CavWarrior
Team Exodus
Team Exodus
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:35 pm
Location: Indiana

Re: Planes

Postby SoB » Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:33 am

CavWarrior wrote:In your opinion the concept is bad I prefer to listen to the guys who actually use the equipment. The Stryker MGS is a fine. battle tested platform. Prone to jamming? Tell that to the guys in the field who've used it. There's the difference between people who read stuff and people with experience. It's swift, silent, and lethal. If you want to keep going back to initial issue problems to make your argument, you'll have to go elsewhere. The F-35 was meant to be a multi-roll fighter/attack aircraft to take the place of several aging aircraft in the inventory now. It was never meant to be a cheaper F-22. That's like saying the Harrier was meant to be a cheaper F/A-18.As for the L44/L55, the L55 is a bit longer. It's still the same gun and the new M256E1 makes up for any difference in length.


Have those guys who used the the stryker MGS used in other FSV? It is pron to jam far more than any manuely loaded L7 model. It carries far less rounds than other FSV. The strk MGS is fighting a low intesty war has it ever had to fight a T55 or have to figh so close to the enemy running over them is a good idea? The stryker has a famly failed it's own requments. Needs to fit in a C130, not with the now standard extra armour and removing the wepaons and getting safty wager flying the crew and troops in a seperat aircraft. Amphboises, not in any Capacty. airdropabal, still not certfied extra extra.
I have had this argumant with some one who crewed one. And even he admits the MGS is not what it should be. I will admit that has a famly the stryker is not a total faluir. It is how ever way over priced.

There are many other fighters that are muilty role aircraft that can replace most of the air craft the F35 will for far cheaper(only the VTOL is missing) and the F35 was ment to be cheaper than the F22 and even though it is still in devlopment all ready costs more.

Comparing ammo is a difrent story. The L55 is a clearly better gun.
User avatar
SoB
Team Exodus
Team Exodus
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:13 pm

Re: Planes

Postby CavWarrior » Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:50 am

You are full of fallacious arguments aren't you? The MGS is no more prone to jamming than any other auto-loading system. To follow your logic a semi-auto rifle is worse than a bolt action rifle because it's more prone to jamming. Your second fallacy lies on your tank comment. They Stryker MGS is not a tank and was never meant to fight a tank. And again, rather than read about what some Pentagon bubblehead says, you might want to talk to those who actually crew it. None would ever say it's perfect, no combat system is. But the Stryker is lethal when used in its role. Ask the Iraqis who went up against it. Stryker troops were nicknamed "Ghost Warriors" by Iraqi insurgents because the Stryker was so silent and lethal they didn't know it was around till they were under fire. It isn't transportable? Try again. Very few weapons systems will fit onto a C-130 without removing something. I suppose you think the Abrams is a fail because the .50 has to be dismounted before transport.

The F-35 is more than a VTOL/STOL aircraft. To think otherwise is foolish. When building an aircraft with the newest technology to fill multi-roles it's short sighted to think there wouldn't be cost overruns. I hope the F-35 stays in development. If and when finished, it will be a brilliant aircraft.
Last edited by CavWarrior on Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
CavWarrior
Team Exodus
Team Exodus
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:35 pm
Location: Indiana

Re: Planes

Postby Red Star » Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:56 am

CavWarrior wrote:The F-35 is more than a VTOL/STOL aircraft. To think otherwise is foolish. When building an aircraft with the newest technology to fir multi-roles it's short sighted to think there wouldn't be cost overruns. I hope the F-35 stays in development. If and when finished, it will be a brilliant aircraft.


Absolutely correct. While aircraft can not win wars or occupy territory, they most certainly hold back and even stop them. Despite what the bean counters say, everybody out there is always looking to build something better and badder than the next guy is. Not producing the F-35 series as a follow on would be a fatal mistake, even when it comes to dealing with brush fire wars. While it may not be the ultimate airframe down the line, it is a very viable weapons platform and a vital step in aircraft evolution. Dealing with both A2A and A2G opposition is extremely serious these days. Surface to air weaponry is deadlier than ever and easier to obtain and maintain, thank God they are still somewhat cost prohibitive for a lot of the current threat areas out there...

things are always changing however.

F-35A
Image

F-35B
Image

F-35C
Image
Time to get up, you're not dead yet...
Image
but you certainly will be if you don't move your ass!
User avatar
Red Star
Team Exodus
Team Exodus
 
Posts: 1417
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Outpost 347, north of the border

Re: Planes

Postby SoB » Thu Nov 28, 2013 10:32 am

CavWarrior wrote:You are full of fallacious arguments aren't you? The MGS is no more prone to jamming than any other auto-loading system. To follow your logic a semi-auto rifle is worse than a bolt action rifle because it's more prone to jamming. Your second fallacy lies on your tank comment. They Stryker MGS is not a tank and was never meant to fight a tank. And again, rather than read about what some Pentagon bubblehead says, you might want to talk to those who actually crew it. None would ever say it's perfect, no combat system is. But the Stryker is lethal when used in its role. Ask the Iraqis who went up against it. Stryker troops were nicknamed "Ghost Warriors" by Iraqi insurgents because the Stryker was so silent and lethal they didn't know it was around till they were under fire. It isn't transportable? Try again. Very few weapons systems will fit onto a C-130 without removing something. I suppose you think the Abrams is a fail because the .50 has to be dismounted before transport.

The F-35 is more than a VTOL/STOL aircraft. To think otherwise is foolish. When building an aircraft with the newest technology to fir multi-roles it's short sighted to think there wouldn't be cost overruns. I hope the F-35 stays in development. If and when finished, it will be a brilliant aircraft.



It is not a rifel now is it. It fires very difrent rounds. And auto loaders for guns of that size that are that small are pron to jam. The auto loader on a ship is the size of a tank and a rifel fires far smaler rounds.

Yes it was never ment to fight a tank, do you think the enemy will care. The aml90s where never built to fight tanks yet fought with T55s. Yes they where never used has tank hunters but if the stumbeled apon one they fought them. And no I am not comparing the 2. I know one is a FSV and the other a scout car. Just pointing out some times the plan failes.

Has I said I spoke to a crew member. He was able to convinse me the entire stryker FOV is not a giant pille of crap. I know mearly think it could have been better. The stryker MGS is still a POS in my eyes.


Was the abrham built with the goal of being rapidly air transported? NO the stryker was and speculy in the C130. It failed this goal along with many others.

The F35 will be brilant when finshe, but not worth the cost. It will be the king tiger of the air, brilant and deadly but way to costly to build and run. What hapenes when the price becomes to high and it goes the root of the F22 with a masivly reduced order.
Not all models are stolv or vtol.
User avatar
SoB
Team Exodus
Team Exodus
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:13 pm

Re: Planes

Postby SoB » Sat Nov 30, 2013 5:45 am

C295 is another good stolv aircraft.
User avatar
SoB
Team Exodus
Team Exodus
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 1:13 pm

Re: Planes

Postby CavWarrior » Wed Dec 04, 2013 8:52 pm

And I've spoken to more than one Stryker crew and the infantry who are transported in it. They love it. And I suppose you've never heard of auto-loaders on tanks. Here's a hint, they tend to jam at times. It happens. The Stryker is transportable. No problem. Ever seen one in a C-130? I have. Remarkable. Your opinion of the vehicle really doesn't matter, especially when it's been used successfully in combat in two wars now. Silent, fast and deadly. And though it wasn't meant to go up against a tank I'm sure it could fight if necessary. But you missed the point in your zeal to put the Stryker down. Like other vehicles of its type it wasn't made for armored combat against a tank. To follow your logic, every military vehicle that wasn't designed to fight a tank is a failure. Silly.

Your opinion of the F-35 doesn't mean much either. It is expensive, but all new technology is, especially wen talking about Gen 5 stealth technology. The price will come down as they are produced. And price isn't everything. The advantage on the battlefield goes to the one who brings the best in fighters and technology. Why are the Chinese and Russians so hot to develop their own stealth fighters if it wasn't worth the price? Stealth has already proven itself in air combat and gives a decided advantage to the pilot flying it.
User avatar
CavWarrior
Team Exodus
Team Exodus
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:35 pm
Location: Indiana

PreviousNext

Return to Vehicles in the Apocalypse

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron